PA 

ssa9 

.1* 







war 



si 



c ■< c 

C < <- 

< C C 

< < < 

CC * * 
C< 



< c «v 



C c C 

C C i 

C cv 

< < 

< c 
Ccc 



cc c 

cc c 
cc < 
cc 
cc 



« c Cv 
c C C 

< C Cc 

C C c^ 

C C (I 
C C C C 

c c cc 



c < * 

< < < 

< C <- 






cc<ac 

< c< 

C< 
^cc 

cCC 

cOC 



I Library of Congress.^ I 

& ========s==== 'M 

I Z^k.U-^-, 1 

1 ~ TiV I 1 ! 

:■■■ Shelf Li2*-L_5 H 

>: m 

■A ^ ® 

HmUNITED STATES OF AMERICA.-- 1 



c CC 

cc 



CC C 



cc < 

<- < c< < 

caCjCCM 

< c c< > i 
c c <LC < 

< c <:c 

c c <:c 

< cc*LC 



c< < C 

<1 <^ 



c<: 
c c 

C C 

c c « 

c C 

1 c c c 
cC 

1 c c • 
C cc 

T < c 
^ <C << - 

- <x cc < a 

- <x cc cc <a 
*- cc c < ' CS 

- <x cc < < < cc 

--■ cc cc c i s « ■ 

cc cc <~ crcc 
: <x <c < <* 
" cc c c < cc 
Lcc -c c < <* 
^<c < < c 
&-=g c <- c < 
-<-" C C C < 

r c c c o 
- c c cc 
r < c c o 

U c < 

(C CcO ■ 
"cC OC< ■ 

TC C«:c 

TC C.C <; 

" cC 5 c 5 

-^ ^ c < ^ 

^jc c c< c 
^ <TcC c C c 



cccc 
<dc< 

crc c c 



<cc$c 

cccc 



<rccc 

cccc - 

; < cc < c 
c C €C C< 
< <. c< ^> 
c CCCCC 
C c < C « 
7r t. cc< cc 
< c CC <c 
c C CC'C 



re 


C « < 


C<C ; < < 


<r< 


JL 


<< 


<*C c c < 


c< 


S ' 


c<x 


<*r c <<^ 


<< 


C< 


c< 


< 'OC"C < < < ' 


<< 


c 


c<iC 


i <«sc « c < <r c 


o. 




coC " 

c<r 


< OCT c <- < 

x<~<Cc (< < ■ < 





vC 


«o^ 


c 


^ c 


o<« 




< < 


uCT^L 




<C 




( 






L 


<^c 


<c<ftiK 


: 


< c 


aCC^K 


l 


c c < 

£ C < 


,ccC« 





- ccCCO 

^<cc^< 

cucc * 
c< at 
<< C< 

<(.cC « 

<r < <l < 
c c CX 
C OCC 
C CC< < 

<c<CC 
< cKC 

< ccC C 

c - c«C c 

<r c C4C C 



4 


^ « 


c <_ 


<L< 


1 


C Cc 


< c«£ 


< 


: C 


< <L<K£c 


c ^ 




V 


<r «-< 


< 


^™» 


' c cc 


c 4 


BC_ 


c < cc 


< « 


•KL 


< C CC 


c < 


32: 


c C Cc 


C 


« 


< c <c 


c 


4KI 


< < c< 


C 


*^r. 


c c <x 


c 


«flCL 


c c <c 


c 


<f71 


c c *c_ < 


vC 


*^_ 



: c< 
<rc ex 

C< CC 

<3 CC 

< « 

C CC 

C ( CC * 
c c <x 
c cc 

c re < 
<r c a < 

CC <X v 

< c CC * 

CC cc c < 
cc 

- CC -, 

v <: c 
- ccC 



C<i <1 CC CC 

^ CC CC 

;c.( c^ 

. < < < 

- c c < 

r c «-. 

C(CCC 



c<: c 






< < 

<C 

ic<^ 



< 4 


c cc< *^; 


: < 


v cc< ^^ 


<r 


.ccc ^c 


■ <r 


cCC^ C< 


c 


v<CC << 


C 


<«S < ( 


<L 


V < <x < 


«l 


v ac <: c < 


< 


v cCCC < 


< 


cc<c< 5: 


C 


< C<'CC C 


C 


v«CC<CC C 


c 


v cc< 1C c < 


C 


vC(C< 5 




v <X<«L .C 


c 


cC'CC 


c 


C<X«LC^ 




«. <icc«_ < 



1 CC 

c c< 

c c<: 
c cc 

C c< 
c cc 
C CC 

: c< 



CC 

cc c 
« c 

CC C 

CC c 

<c c 

" <c- < 
<rc«c 



fen, Okr bro-<Ucry*>7 <r^ 



\ 












LETTER 



TO 



The Rev. C J. Blomfield, A. B. 




A 

LETTER 

TO 

THE REV. C. J. BLOMFIELD, A. B. 

One of the Junior Fellows of Trinity Coll. Cambridge s 

CONTAINING 

REMARKS 

ON 

THE EDINBURGH REVIEW 

V' 
OF 

THE CAMBRIDGE MSCHYL^S. 

AND INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS 

THAT OF 

THE OXFORD STRABO. 

/ 

BY THE REV, S. BUTLER, A. M< 

HEAD MASTER OF SHREWSBURY SCHOOL, S$C. fyc. 



CUM TABULIS ANIMUM CENSORIS SUMAT HONESTI. 

Hot. Epist. II. 2. 110. 
NEON NEOI KPATEITE KAI AOKEITE AH 
% NAIEIN AnEN0H nEPTAMA.— Msch, Promeih. v. 954. 



SHREWSBURY : 

PRINTED AND SOLD BY IV. EDDOJVES, 

Sold also by J. Mackinlay, 87, Strand ; and Messrs. Longman, 

Hurst, Rees, and Orme, Paternoster Row, London 3 

and by J. Deighton, Cambridge.— 1 810, 

[ PRICE 3s jk 




M 



#»A 



■^V* 



96-845402 



A LETTER, &c. 



DEAR SIR, 

W HEN the twenty-ninth number of the Edinburgh 
Review reached me, I was sitting in a little back parlour 
(where I shall be very happy to see you) at my Living 
in Warwickshire, in the company of the most illustrious 
scholar now living, from whose friendship and society 1 
derive no small satisfaction. I wish you had been 
of the party, for alas ! I cannot describe to you how I 
became alternately pale and red, how I trembled, and 
started sometimes from my chair, sometimes dashed the 
book against the wall, and then picked it up again ; 
sometimes clasped my hands, and sometimes should 
have torn my hair, if my head had not luckily been 
shaved, as I proceeded to read that profound and elabo- 
rate critique. Indeed, as the day was chill, the wind 
loud, and the clouds lowering, I should probably have 
set off in quest of the shade of ^schylus, by the help of 
a halter and a three-legged stool, had I not been com- 
forted by the assurances of my eminently learned friend, 
that he saw nothing in the remarks of the Edinburgh 

B Reviewer, 



4 

Reviewer! which induced him to change the fswomobto 
opinion lie had been kind enough strongly and frequent- 
ly to express in favour of my book. 

A little cheered by these flattering declarations, I 
ventured, with the assistance of hartshorn and lavender 
drops, a bottle of port wine, and a white pocket hand- 
kerchief, whilst my learned friend was amusing himself 
with his pipe and the newspaper of the day, once more to 
peruse these formidable strictures. And never did I 
experience more satisfactorily, or more decisively, the 
truth of that proverb, which I need not tell you is to be 
found in a fragment of an antient Greek author " quoted 
by Vauvilliers," who says, that pwx p«/«»Xiaf»Iu fyu^ *omfl. 
For as I read, I felt re-assured. 1 threw my physic " to 
the dogs," and my port wine down my own throat, 
which wonderfully contributed to raise my courage, and 
by the time my much respected friend bad finished his 
newspaper, I had laid aside all my fears, and all my 
intentions of setting off to visit the ghost of iEschylus, 
Still, however, this formidable Review, and the dread of 
severe castigation in the subsequent number, continued 
to sit heavy on my mind, to disturb my slumbers, and 
to poison my enjoyment. It was like the " destrictus 
ensis" which I have some faint recollection of having 
read of in some obscure Latin author, hanging over my 
impious head, and spoiling my Sicilian feasts. Fortune 
*vas again favourable to me ; scarcely had my bookseller 
sent me the Edinburgh Review, No. xxx, when the 
same distinguished scholar, who had saved me from 
despair on a former occasion, came to spend a fortnight 
with me at Shrewsbury. You will perhaps conclude that 
I flew to him for consolation, and gave him the book, 

with 






with eager intreaties that he would read it, and witk 
much tragic declamation against the Reviewer's bar- 
barity. No such thing, my dear friend. I recollected 
the examples of heroism displayed under persecution by 
Socrates, and Aristides, and Phocion, and Camillus, 
and other great men of antiquity, whom I had read of in 
Goldsmith's Grecian History, Langhorne's Translation 
of Plutarch, and Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, and I 
resolved to imitate them ; and so far I did carry my 
magnanimity, that I assure you upon my honour, tho' the 
book lay upon a shelf in my study, within two inches of 
his chair, I never put it into his hand, or even mentioned 
the subject to him. Once, and once only, it was 
spoken of in strong terms of reprobation by a person who 
happened to come in ; and then both he and I affected 
to laugh. I am sure you will congratulate me on having 
thus turned my classical education to practical account, 
which I attribute to a sentence from Cicero, whom I 
quote from the Eton Scriptores Romani, *« O vitae 
philosophia dux, &c." 

Well, my dear sir, with my mind cheered by the 
society of my friend, you may easily suppose that I 
forgot the E. R. in his learned and instructive conversa- 
tion ; and it is proper that I should now inform vou, why I 
have recurred to it, and why I have chosen to address you 
on the occasion, and why I have not addressed you sooner. 

On the first of these points I shall observe, that 
being alone, and the day being wet, and not feeling a 
disposition to sit down to graver studies, I have deter- 
mined to amuse myself by dissecting a Reviewer. On 
the second, I beg leave to remark, that as you are one of 
those young men, towards whom I have both person* 

B 2 ally 



6 

3.11 v and by letter expressed very warm and sincere good 
wishes, and of whom I have always spoken in terms of 
approbation, I am happy for that reason to make this 
public declaration of my good-will towards you. Hav- 
ing also considered you as possessing, with talents highly 
creditable to a young man, and with academic honours 
similar to those which I had the good fortune to obtain, 
a degree of diffidence and modesty highly creditable, 
and an abhorrence of that pert flippancy and that cox- 
combry of learning which is apt to turn young heads, 
when having read a little beyond their common school 
books, they fancy they know a great deal — and for cer- 
tain other reasons, some of which I need not declare, as 
being sufficiently obvious, and others of which will 
develope themselves in the course of this letter, I thought 
I could not do better than address myself to you ; and I 
hope you and your friends will at least derive entertain, 
inent, if not instruction, from the resolution which I 
have adopted. 

For the interval which has passed between my receipt 
of the E. R. No. 29, and the date of this letter, I can 
account also very satisfactorily. I could not answer it 
till I had seen the continuation of the subject in the 
subsequent Number. I have not yet possessed that 
Number three weeks, and my time since has been occu- 
pied in much more agreeable society ; besides, I wished 
for the sake of decorum to wait till you were old enough 
to take Deacon's Orders, and of Academic standing 
enough to be reckoned among the Senior Bachelors, 
before I publickly addre ssed _ you ; for in this respect I 
differ from our lamented late Greek Professor, whose 
general rule was to address his writings, and to bestow a 

good 



good deal of his society on the " Juventus Academica," 
from whom he could not fail to obtain undeviating 
homage, and unqualified applause Wise, in my opinion, 
were those young men, who, after the example of the 
poets, when their great prototype was sick in Charon's 
skiff, treasured up all the fragments which they could 
collect of the deceased Professor. But on this subject 
allow me for a few minutes to be serious. I need not, 
I am sure, bear my most sincere testimony to the trans - 
cendant merits of that Colossus of critical learning now 
no more. None of the elder or younger members of his 
college, none of his most zealous advocates, of his most 
ardent admirers, and most attached disciples can more 
deeply feel, or more willingly acknowledge their respect 
for his profound learning, his keen discrimination, his 
iinfailing accuracy, and his sagacious judgment. But I 
am not so far dazzled by this blaze of glory, as not to be 
aware also that these brighter parts of his character were 
shaded by some imperfections. Men who have been the 
highest ornaments of human nature have not been 
exempt from some of it's infirmities ; of these I would 
speak with the reverence which is due to the illustrious 
dead ; or rather, I would be wholly silent ; but I cannot 
content myself without entering my fearless and vigorous 
protest against the narrow, jealous, dogmatizing, vindic- 
tive, and invidious spirit, which both you and I well 
know to be prevalent among his disciples, and which I 
doubt not you will join with me in reprobating, as 
especially unworthy of those who are engaged in studies, 
which professedly tend to humanize and enlarge the I 
mind. His followers, absorbed in the contemplation of 
his greatness, seem, I think, but too much inclined to 
indulge in narrowness, which will not listen to investi^a- 



tion, 



8 

tion, in jealousy which will not admit a rival, in dogma- 
tism whiph will not hear of* fallibility, in envy which will 
not allow of praise. I do not recollect to have met with 
many passages in the writings of the late Professor, which 
tend 10 applaud his literary contemporaries ; this could 
not arise from envy, because envy implies inferiority, 
which that great man could certainly neither have felt 
nor acknowledged. I should rather impute it in him to 
a fastidiousness of judgment, and a consciousness of the 
value of praise from one so far above the generality of 
mankind as himself. But whatever may have been the 
cause of this conduct, it has certainly had a bad effect 
in its consequences among his disciples, and has gener- 
ated in them not unfrequently a certain narrowness or 
niggardliness of praise not altogether becoming liberal and 
candid men. But they are mostly young, and probably 
feel the want of this commodity so much themselves, that 
they have but little inclination to part with it to others. 

I cannot easily conjecture, or at least cannot 
easily satisfy my mind, why the late Greek Professor, 
who was one of the greatest scholars that ever trod 
the earth, should have chosen to differ so greatly 
from one of his immortal predecessors in critical fame, 
who was in his day no less an ornament to Trinity 
College than himself, and whose memory is venerated 
by every British and every Continental scholar— -I mean 
Bentley. His stupendous powers were not employed in 
addressing the " Juventus Academica ;" but he wrote 
to the "primores populi," to scholars of maturer judg- 
ment and of riper years ; among whom he was no less 
supereminent, than the late illustrious Professor among 
the " Academic Youth." In a common man there 

might 



might have been something of condescension in such 
conduct ; but in such a Colossal genius as Porson, there 
appears, I must confess, somewhat of contempt for his 
literary contemporaries, which I do not think wholly 
justifiable. I have ventured these remarks with serious- 
ness and with fearlessness. They will not, I trust, offend 
any liberal scholar, and for the bigoted or narrow-minded 
I am not much accustomed to care. I shall now return 
to the E. R. 

That the E. Reviewer is a Porsbnian, admits not i 
of a doubt. That he is amember of your very re- 
spectable college is equally certain ; and this is an- 
other reason for my addressing you, that you may 
be on your guard against him, and avoid him. My 
dear Sir, let me advise you never to be seen in his 
company, if you can help it ; he will do you no 
credit, and it is ten to one but he will make you a sharer 
in his disgrace. If he still pursues you, do try if you 
can escape him by clambering up the sides of a copper 
bottomed frigate, which is the best modern explanation 
I can find of that " cerata triremis" honourably men- 
tioned in my Delphin Horace, page 163. 

Before I enter into an examination of the critique 
itself, allow me to state to you two of the causes of the 
* c capitale odium," which the E. Reviewer appears to 
entertain against me. You cannot be ignorant, my dear 
Sir, that one way by which a young man, panting after 
fame and eager for the precocious enjoyment of it, some- 
times attempts to gain his object is, by attacking InY 
seniors. I knew a writing--master who rose in this manner 
to immortality by a rampant assault on Sir Isaac 

Newton ; 



10 

Newton ; and more than one young gentleman of your 
college, who has given indisputable proof of his own 
wisdom by flatly denying that of those sound and sober 
critics, who have rather been content with the text of 
classical authors, when it afforded plain good sense, than 
indulged in the wild and excursive range of conjectural 
emendation. But this is not all. It happened that I 
was writing to our present Greek Professor soon after 
I had read the E. R. of the Oxford Strabo, and I freely 
expressed to him, what I did very unreservedly to every 
body, my opinion of the merits of that Review. I 
believe I said, that allowing it to be true, still it was ill- 
natured even to malevolence ; that I thought it behoved 
the E. Reviewer, when he taxed the Oxford Latin so 
heavily, to take care of his own : that the specimens he 
had given of an improved version of the Oxford notes, 
were not always remarkable for their elegance ; that I 
saw many objections started, which any body might 
easily make ; but that I saw little done towards clearing 
up any points of History, Antiquit}^, Philology, or Geo- 
graphy, which, by the Reviewer's acknowledgement, 
were in the greatest need of illustration, and which none 
but a scholar could elucidate. I admitted indeed, that 
the Latin of the Notes was not elegant, or correct, or 
very scholar-like ; but I added that it was not unintelligi- 
ble, and that it was hardly fair or candid to look for faults 
in note Latiji, where some indulgence should be allowed 
by a liberal critic, and by a fair scholar, who would be 
more anxious for the matter than the style. Rut abov e 
all I deprecated the narrow ? jealous, i lliberal sp irit, which 
presumed to visit the fault s of a n ind ividual on an Uni- 
versity, and to call that the Oxford Latinitj^ whichjvas 
in fact the Latinity of Mr. Falconer. 

This 



V 



9 *? 



11 

This perhaps is one, but by no means the only reason 
of the unfairness with which I have been treated in the, 
E. R. This letter, by some mismanagement 1 suppose, 
never reached the Greek Professor, and possibly may 
have fallen into the hands of the E. Reviewer ; at least] 
that it never was received by the Professor I am morally (l^ 
certain, for it contained, besides these remarks, a requesti^ fi r 2/ ^^^/Cy^ 
that he would accommodate me with the loan of a book W^ '" 2jSH' 
of no great intrinsic value except to myself. Now I am r^ . ^yZr- 
sure, that his natural politeness would have induced j^g^ *^W^^ 
him in the space of seven months since that letter was i ^ j$ ~g J 
written, to favour me with a reply : especially, as nothing \fy t/ y%f ^s 
could exceed the civility, which he was so kind as to | yij^^^^^^^ 
shew me when I was last at Cambridge, and which was \*u~*-4£ 4n*i(^ 

J returned on my part by every instance of unfeigned r^^^^y £t~c£_ 

[regard in my power. ^ ^ ^ t ^ 

It is to be remarked also, that in my letter to the 
Greek Professor, after I had expressed my sentiments 
pretty freely on the Edinburgh Review of the Strabo, 
I added, as nearly as I can recollect, that I supposed I 
should in my turn afford amusement to the Reviewer's 
worrying propensities, about which I was very uncon- 
cerned, and thought it extremely improbable that I 
should ever notice or reply to these critical assailants : 
so that possibly the Reviewer thought himself at liberty 
\ to indulge in his invectives with impunity. 

The other cause is this ; that I do verily believe this 

juvenile Reviewer is preparing an edition of iEschylus 

for the press himself, and that he has thought it ad^ 

visable (a vile thought !) to make an attempt at securing 

C a favourable 






I 



12 

a lu\ourable reception for his own edition, by remain" 
clown and undervaluing mine. 

To dissect, as I learn from my Ainsworth, is to cut 
open, or to cut in pieces : I shall therefore, after this defi- 
nition, proceed to business, taking to pieces each para- 
graph, that I may meet the question fairly, and omit 
nothing, which may contribute to your amusement. 

I find nothing remarkable, except the display of 
learning in the first paragraph, till I come to the Re- 
viewer's declaration, that he has seen the collation of 
fourteen MSS. of jEschylus. I will help him to the 
place where he obtained this wondrous sight — It was in 
a little thin book with a blue paper cover, in the Uni- 
versity library of Cambridge ; an exact transcript of 
which is now lying before me, and of which I shall have 
occasion to speak in my preface to my jEschylus ; and in 
a small 4to. bound book, of which I have also a copy. 

The E. R. observes, that " there is reason however 
to believe that some of the libraries on the continent 
conceal manuscripts more valuable than sny which have 
yet been collated by any editor ; one in particular of 
venerable antiquity is preserved in the Medicean library 
at Florence ; unless, as it is most probable, it has been 
conveyed with the other treasures of that city, to the 
vast museum of learning and the arts at Paris." Now 
from hence we must infer that the Medicean MS. has never 
been collated. The contrary is the fact ; I have now 
two very accurate collations of that MS, lying before 
me, one of which is transcribed from the book already 
mentioned, and was made for Dr. Nediham, (h. e. 

Need- 



13 



Needham), by Salvini. Of this also I shall speak in my 
preface. But I have already mentioned it in my con- 
spectus before the notes, and I refer to it in almost every 
note which I have written. — I put it therefore to you, my 
dear Sir, whether the Reviewer in this instance is not 
guilty of a most unfair and illiberal insinuation ? He 
could not be ignorant of what must have stared him in 
the face in every note, he must therefore have been silent 
through the basest and most malevolent design. It is of/ 
this conduct that I shall have to complain in the progress 
of my examination. To fair criticism I have no objec- 
tion. It is against hypocritical candour, against faint 
and " damning" praise, against wilful misrepresentation, 
against sly insinuation, against artful misquotation, that 
I denounce fierce and implacable war. The critic who 
fairly meets me, who throws down the gauntlet, and 
boldly bids defiance to his adversary, will never find me 
a sullen enemy if conquered, or an ungenerous one if 
victorious. But I hate and loathe assassination, and I 
dare say you will feel uncomfortable at the bare mention 
of it. 



The next paragraph draws an insidious comparison 
between Professor Porson and myself. I shall only ob- 
serve, that did 1 not acknowledge most sincerely, my great 
inferiority to that mighty scholar, I should deserve to be 
thought to be as vain as any young man of Trinity Coll. 
who has just launched his bark in the great ocean of 
literature, and thinks in his little cock-boat to run down 
a first-rate man of war.* — But while I grant his transcend- 
ent merits, why should his disciples, with that system of 
C 2 exclusion 



* Lest the E. R. should chuse to affirm that I have been seeking 
in this passage for a compliment to myself, I beg to disclaim any 
allusion in the simile. 



14 

exclusion which they so generally adopt, admit nothing 
to have the least claim to attention which is not of the 
Porsonian School ?* If Mr. Porson would not under- 
take the office, was it to be forbidden to all others ? and 
if the University of Cambridge honoured me so far as to 
think me capable of executing the work, " arduous as 
it was," I was not so insensible of the distinction as to 
be deterred from undertaking it by the dread of Mr. 
Porson or of any man living. But on this subject I have 
a curious anecdote, which I may possibly relate, when 
1 come to speak of Professor Poison's Edition in my 
general preface. 

The Reviewer is at a loss to conceive why Stanley's 
text was chosen as the basis of my Edition — I will tell 
him. It was originally my own wish to be released from 
Stanley's text, and though I was not very well contented 
with the determination of the Syndics when they insisted 
on my adopting it, I have found reason since to be fully 
satisfied with their decision. Without Stanley's text, 
Stanley's notes, both edited and unedited, would be 
absolutely unintelligible. Stanley was the greatest 
scholar of his age in this country, the greatest ornament 
of his time to the University of Cambridge ; he was a 
liberal, a candid, and an upright Scholar, yet wholly free 
from vanity, from envy, and from self-importance. I 
venerate the memory of such a man, and it would have 
been an act of injustice to his merits, and disgraceful to 
the University, not to have brought forward his notes in 

the 

9 Teaching of their great master, like the Epicureans of old, 
that 

— < — — ' — oranes 
Rcstinxit, slellas exortus uti aetherius Sol. 



15 

the clearest, the fullest, and the most intelligible form. 
I consider my edition as a monument to his honour ; his 
learned otes form the most prominent and most im- 
portant i t of it ; and I am glad that I did not garble 
and dish* "e them by accommodation to a text altered 
accordin to my fancy. No references could have 
been made with any degree of accuracy had the text 
been changed ; and as I take care invariably to point out 
any necessary alteration in my notes, a person may 
easily find what 1 consider to be the true text by consult- 
ing them. Had I proposed to publish a small edition of 
JEschylus with my own notes only, I should undoubtedly 
have giver! my own text ; ^ut when I had Stanley's 
notes to publish, I am persuaded that I could not have 
done justice but by adopting his text ; and I am heartily 
glad that I did not suffer any foolish motives of vanity, 
or ostentation, to occupy my mind one moment on the 
subject. My own text is given in my own notes. It 
was my duty to let Stanley occupy the prominent 
situation. 

I do not wish to deal in hypercriticisms, but as there 
is so much unfairness in the subsequent parts of this 
Review, I cannot but incline to suspect in the sen- 
tence, " Mr. Butler has had access to the MS. notes 
of Scaliger, Casaubon, and Stanley ; as well as to the 
- collations of nine MSS. made partly by the late Dr. Askew, 
and partly by some of his_ learned correspondents on the # Z A fk* wr $ 
Continent," that the word his is designedly put in am- 
biguous situation, as leaving a doubt whether Dr. Askew 
or Mr. Butler is referred to. But I will not press this 
point ; and if you should ever hear the E. Reviewer say, 
ihat he did not design an ambiguity, you may believe 
him. 

When 






16 

When the K. Reviewer says nine MSS. be says the 
truth, but not the wfofc truth. — The Conspectus alluded 
to, prefixed to my notes, enumerates exactly twenty MSS, 
besides IMS. notes. Of these fen MSS. are enumerated 
as collated bjfcAskew, hoo by Stanley, and afterwards by 
Askew, that is in all twelve by Askew, four by Schutz, 
and /?>//>• hitherto uncollated — two of which are collated 
by myself, and two communicated from Venice by the 
celebrated Abbe Morelli. Now this must have been 
obvious to the E. Reviewer, not only from the con- 
spectus, but from reading the notes themselves ; I there- 
fore once more leave it to you to decide as to the 
epithet with which we are to characterize the Reviewer's 
candour and veracity ; the MS. collations to which I 
declare 1 have had access being either sixteen instead of 
nine, or, including those quoted by Schutz, twenty instead 
of nine. And here I shall just observe, that the Re- 
viewer, while he notices what he supposes to be the 
uncollated Medicean, says not a syllable, about the much 
talked of Venetian MS. which was, if I mistake not, the 
foundation of Mr. Professor Porson's refusal to under- 
take the Edition of /Eschylus. If I am rightly informed, 
the Professor wished the Syndics to send him to Venice 
for the purpose of collating this MS. and on their not 
feeling authorised to comply with this proposal, declined 
to proceed in the edition. The last account I had of 
this MS. is from the Abbe Morelli, who laments that 
it was carried off by the French from the library of St. 
Mark, and states that he hears it was seen afterwards 
in the hands of a French soldier in a common pothouse 
in Switzerland. I hope it has not shared the fate of the 
celebrated "chartaceous MS. of the Rev. Mr. Adams," 
to which the E. II, in a subsequent part of his remarks 
sarcastically alludes. 

The 



17 

The extract I am now about to make is of consider- 
able consequence ; " To these are subjoined two com- 
mentaries, one critical, and the other illustrative; forming 
part of what we suppose is intended to form a complete 
Corpus jEschyleum,' comprehending the substance of 
all former commentaries, and OF course including what- 
ever is material in the notes of Robortellus, Muretus, 
Turnebus, Stephens, Garhitius, and later critics ; to- 
gether with some original remarks communicated to Mr. 
Butler by the celebrated historian Muller, who, whatever 
might have been his merits in other respects, was 
certainly but little qualified to comment upon Ms- 
chylus. We speak this however with deference to Mr. 
Butler, who, to use his own expression, adores from afar 
the footsteps of this great man." Here we have the ob- 
ject of the edition stated, and an admission by the words 
" OF COURSE," that it was incumbent on me, while 
professing to publish a Variorum edition of JEschylus, to 
give the notes, or at least the substance of the notes, of 
former commentators. A circumstance, which in the 
subsequent parts of this essay is frequently made the 
subject of unbecoming sneers, as if I was answerable for 
any errors or mistakes which they may have fallen into. 
With respect to the merits of Mr. Muller, I shall speak 
more fully at a future opportunity ; I have only to say, 
that the expression which the E. R. is pleased to ridicule 
by a burlesque English translation, will probably give**" 
him less offence, as he extends his range of reading in 
his maturer years : he may then chance to stumble on it 
in a writer, who deserves to be more generally read — I 
mean Statius, Thebaic!, xu. 817, It is singul ir, that in 
the very next sentence, the Reviewer says, " we wish 
that Mr. Butler had been contented with giving us this 



f£~ 



18 

vers useful synopsis of the different readings, with his 
own opinions and remarks, without subjoining the pon- 
derous and often useless annotations which swell the 
volume to an alarming size." — So much for the Re- 
viewer's consistency. 

" From the arrangements also of the divisions, the 
reader is continually obliged to refer to no less than six 
different parts of the volume." The arrangements ap- 
pear to be as convenient as the nature of the work would 
allow. — There are necessarily six divisions. — The question 
is, whether it is more eligible in an 8vo. or 4to. to have 
six divisions, each comprising every thing relating to the 
general object expressed in its title, or six little breaks 
or deformities in the page, occasioning the reader con. 
tinually to refer forwards and backwards. In the former 
case, the reader knows under which head to look for the 
object of his enquiries ; in the latter, he is under the 
perpetual necessity of reading one line of text in a page, 
and turning over half a dozen leaves before he can 
y*j£ • £ rir> *£ t/ - arr ive at tne conclusion of a sentence. They who have 
\c/z jflu/Jfr*^ * read the Dutch classics, where the text swims like a 
/£■'& xre-r£& 1+7^' CO jJi r boat in an ocean of notes, ,must be aware of this 
ty<i*<^£*^ ~^%\. inconvenience. _ 

". r, \ " Mr. Butler professes to have collated four manu- 

scripts, not previously consulted ; but we have good 
reason to believe, that the two Codices Cantabrigienses 
were formerly in the possession of Dr. Mead ; and that.a 
collation of them, made by Dr. Askew in the year 1744, 
is noted in the copy of Stanley's iEschylus formerly 
in his possession, and now in the University library." — 
f This is an instance of that malicious misrepresentation, 

which 






19 

' which alone could have induced me to pay any attention 
to this Review, and against which, from a love of truth 
and honesty, I shall always wage unrelenting war. My 
title in the conspectus to the two Cambridge MSS. is, 
Codices a nobis collatl ; — to the two Venetian MSS. 
Codices nobiscum communicati. In my prefatory notice 
I say, Habes etiam vv. LL. non solum e plurimis codicibus 
quorum quatuor Ven. 1, 2, Cant. 1, 2* nunc primum V * nSj£~ 
collati sunt. This is strictly_t£iie^- The E. R. is per- ^ffc ~ z t&cs/ 
fectly right in his conjectures about the two Cambridge £,4x^,^.4 
MSS, having been collated by Dr. Askew, and entered £<t4^/csP~ 
in the margin of his noted copy of Stanley ; and possiblyT^*jp^ °j?~ 
you may have been present when the Reviewer examin-f 
ed those books ; but I am sure your candid and ingenuous 
mind must have shrunk from the base and foul misre- 
presentation which he has made. Dr. A skew's collation] 
of the two Cambridge MSS. as you well know, and as 
the Reviewer must have known, was never made public 
till I produced it ; and I therefore might very fairly and 
reasonably call these uncollated MSS. But the Re. 
viewer must either know or be ignorant that the two 
Cambridge MSS. were in f acjunot collated by Dr. 7%5jf ^ 
Askew. That his collation of them is very imperfect. ^ ^d^^^ 
That the Codex Cant. 1, is by no means so fully collated ^^jU^r- &%+„ 
by him as it has been by me ; and that the Codex Cant, /^c^-r^^ru 
2, has never been collated at all by him beyond, if I 
recollect, the middle of the Sept. Theb. or hardly so far ; 
but as I write now at th© distance of 150 miles from 
Cambridge, I cannot specify the exact line ; that it has 
never been collated at all in the Persse, and that the new 
and copious Scholia of the Persae from the Codex Cant. 
J, were never hinted at by Askew. Now if the Re- 
viewer knew these facts, what are we to think of his 

D honesty ? 



20 

honest v r If, with the books before him, he could not 
find them out, what will you say of his abilities ? To 
the collation of those two MSS. I owe a weakness in my 
eyes, which at the time was very serious, and from 
which I have never recovered. For I determined to 
examine them accurately, and I believe the scholia are 
written in as small a hand as is generally seen in Greek 
MSS. besides which there are a number of interlineal 
Scholia written originally in red, but now in pale pink- 
ish ink, to read which I was obliged to use a large 
inagnifier, such as watchmakers work by, and could only- 
read when there was a full and bright sunshine on the 
book. 

Ke> trffer-A-urtri B y t ] ie wor( } s « i t may PROBABLY be unnecessary 

£j 'fe^.,^ inform Mr. Butler, that some of the conjectures of 

&, f't^rfcLts Casaubon, copied from a book in the National Library 

^ rf£z$ «^ - at Paris, and noted in the margin of this Stanley, have 

^^ t ~ jC \£y' since been published with remarks by Vauvilliers," an 

'z ** /3t insinuation is intended which I really think it unneces- 

y Cm^ J&&Z& sar * T t0 re P e ^ The pl ace which I reserved for the mention 

^ 6xMa+ -2«v^ of this circumstance is my preface, where it will be 

s &*-- &* ■■*-£ noticed. But I have only to observe at present, that 

? tvfliZ*- rf- with far more copious original conjectures of Casaubon, 

p 1 :****- ~^f J\£ before me, it was hardly to be expected, that I should 

/r ^5»v^Mesett Casaubon's Autograph for the scantier, and less 

I** , a^ >c authentic supplies of Vauvilliers. 

tS^ a/*C fa V*c*^v cJ&^f <-*-» SXZ^ ^a>*^jt. ew*^ 6j~zI**4 

f " Mr. B. conjectures that the three dramas on the 

subject of Prometheus, together with a fourth, perhaps 
the Supplices, formed a Tetralogia Promethea, We 
are rather inclined to believe the author of the argument 
to the Persae, who probably derived his information 

from 



from 



21 



from the Didascalisg, when he tells us that ^schylus 
gained the prize in the Archonship of Menon by the ^S* 

following Tetralogy, The Persae, Pliineu?, Glaucus C) 

Potnieus, Prometheus, i. e. the Prometheus Vinctus or '• ' 

the Prometheus Solutus ; for the Prometheus Ignifer ap- 
pears to have been a Satyric Drama, as was the Glaucus 
Potnieus." Here is a pert affecation of learning mis- 
applied ; and the Reviewer, conscious of having blun- 
dered, attempts in the subsequent number to correct 
himself, and flounders still deeper. So far from my 
conjecture being at all similar to that which the Re* 
viewer is so obliging as gratuitously to attribute to me, I 
have formed no conjecture whatever on the subject— -my 
words are so very plain that I could not imagine any 
tolerable scholar could be at a loss to understand them. 



Y^£. **^- 



G~i~.. 



" Cum vero tetralogise veterum e trilogia constarent cuqi 7z%&> 47, 

satyro, vellem aliquis haec dramata, DIVERSIS DOCTA pasrm^?' 
TEMPORIBUS, in unum collegisset, ut essent vel 

II^opjGey? Tlvgipogoq, Aeo-palrit;, Avopevot;, Clim Ilv%xoc,e? f vel potius 

ITgopjSey? Atcrpurvn, 'l>t£Ti^, H%o[AY)Qev<; Avopsvos, Cum U^^iV 

nv$6%u vi nv%KKB? 9 tetralogia jEschylea de Prometheo, 
n^o^Qgia? dicta, sicut altera ilia de Oreste, quae 'Opr^a?, 
sicut Philoclis tragici de Pandione, qua; TLwhovU, sicut 
Euripidis de Alcmseone quam 'A^dnwA titulo restituit 
illi Bentleius o Qxvpurk, in Epistola celeberrima, p. 17." 
Did I not observe that the E. R. either through wilful- i 
ness or incapacity, perpetually misunderstands the 
plainest sentences, I should hardly think it worth 
while to construe the beginning of this sentence for 
him. Vero but cum since tetralogies veterum the tetra- 
logies of the antienis constarent consisted e trilogia of 
three tragedies cum Satyro together with a satyric 
drama vellem / wish aliquis that some one collegissit 
D2 in 



22 

b iinuin had ccUccfed together hrrc dramata these 
plays docta ACTED diversis tcniporibns AT different 
times, &c« — So far was I from supposing these plays to 
have been acted together) that I merely suggested a wish 
that they had afterwards been collected into a tetralo- 
gia Promethea, because they might thus more probably 
have been presetted together. My dear Sir, I am sure 
your indignation will be unbounded at this instance of 
gross misrepresentation ! — When the E. R. says the Pro- 
metheus Ignifer appears to have been a Satyric drama, 
he seems to give his own discovery. He should in fair- 
ness have said for the Pr. Ign. " as Mr. B. observes, 
appears, &c." 

" Mr. B. has not remarked, that the true reading (as 
the late Professor judged) in the 2d verse, viz. a£goror, 
is preserved by the Venetian scholiast, IL £. 78 Eustath. 
p. 953, 42, Phavorin. in. v. 'A^otjj »v|." I do not think 
this the true reading ; on the contrary, I told the Greek 
Professor when he declared for it, that the common read- 
ing appeared to me to give good sense, and was coun- 
.. tenanced by all the MSS. and Editions of ^Eschylus, and 

sn^ /v&f tnat I thought «SgoTov at least an Homeric., if not an 
CZ/ciy^ft^i affected reading. Still I have no objection to any one's 
/krU'tJ " c husing the other, or tvvpu&v which I should myself 
prefer ; but as this is one of Professor Porson's inedited 
t emendations, I shall say nothing on it till I come to the 

7 close of the Review in No. 30. 

" In v. 59, vS^ag is undoubtedly the true reading ; 
to prove which we could produce various satisfactory 
testimonies omitted in the notes under consideration." — 
Who that reads this [note would not suppose that I ha 

said 




23 

said 9r<>£4?? was not the true reading, or at least had 

left it doubtful ? My words are " sed recte habent vo^ 

Schutz et Pors." Can any thing be plainer ? — Are the. fav^> A** ^-^^ 

kstances, plain and clear? — if they are, why adduce ^f *///?"&■ *-*" 

more, especially as there is a third brought by Stephens Y^**' * %tA ' *y "' 

in a former part of this very note. — My constant rule is, * 

when a thing is clear enough, to leave it so. I disdain 

the idle parade of learning when enough has been said 

already ; and I can shew you, for the information of the 

E. R. pages upon pages of my own remarks crossed out, 

because when I came to arrange the notes, I found some 

preceding commentator had said enough already. — My 

aim is to instruct, not to make a display ; — I leave that 

to little minds, and young Reviewers. 

" We agree with a learned critic, who, in his re- 
marks on Porson's edition of the Hecubaj stated the 
utility of noting in what parts of the antient authors any 
portions of the text in question are quoted. This cer- 
tainly may be effected by great memory, or great 
industry ; but we do not wonder that Mr. B. should 
have been deficient in this respect, considering the 
numerous and more important labours which he has had 
to accomplish in the capacity of editor." — To this must 
be added the remarks in page 160. " We will conclude 
our remarks on it, with a list of those passages in the play 
which are not noted by the learned editor, as being quot- 
ed by the antient authors, vv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 44. 59. 60. 
79. 105. 248. 250. 327. 329. 350. 355. 365. 378. 437. 457. 
575. 592. 610. 611. 612. 667. 704. 730. 764. 803. 979." 
— These sentences are calculated to answer a double pur- 
pose ; in the first of them, the reviewer, in the plenitude 
of his good nature, breaks my head, and then gives me 

a 



H 

a planter ; in the second, he displays the superior extent 
pf his own reading by quoting 32 passages quoted by 
r.ntient authors but unnoticed by me. I may be allowed 
to doubt the necessity of loading pages with quotations 
uninteresting in themselves. The nature of my work is 
necessarily voluminous, and I have been obliged frequent- 
ly to use the pruning knife in a manner which none but 
those who inspect my original papers can imagine. On 
this account my own notes are as short and confined as I 
could make them ; for, having in view no ostentatious dis- 
play of learning or talents, but merely a desire to instruct, 
I uniformly give the notes of preceding commentators 
where sufficient, without any additions. I make no ex- 
cursions into the wide field of conjectural emendations 
on other authors — reserving all such remarks for my 
common -place book, and contenting myself with illus- 
trating /£sclrylus alone. For I am sure, that such an 
illustration will of itself entitle me to find my proper 
rank, wherever it may be, among the scholars and critics 
of the present day, without an ambitious display of 
excursive reading ; because it must be obvious, that 
without such reading I should be utterly unable to eluci- 
date a single page. — I may perhaps, in my anxious desire 
of compression, now and then have omitted a passage of 
JEschylus which is quoted by an antient author, when it 
would have been better brought forward. But for this 
I must claim the indulgence of every equitable scholar, 
who knows the immense mass of materials which, after 
the utmost care, I am obliged to wield. In fact, I think 
it seldom necessary to refer to such passages, except in 
. the case of a various lection, — and then I believe, I 
fatjy*uc^ cpx G^. generalh/^do it, unless it has been done before by some 
"^22*^- commentator whom I have quoted. 

Let 



23 

Let me add also, and I add it in defence, not in 
ostentation, that probably no man ever undertook a work 
of this nature with so little assistance. Of the many 
thousand and ten thousand passages I have had to refer 
to in antient authors, not one has been pointed out to 
me by any learned friend ; I have received no hints, no 
notes, no communications of any kind, except those 
which I have published with authors' names. I live in 
a remote provincial town, far from the seats of learning, 
the two Universities and the Metropolis. With the excep- 
tion of my upper boys, I have no Porsonulettes at hand 
whose advice I can ask on intricate points, and to whom. 
I may communicate my notes as I write them ; nor have 
they ever been subjected to any eyes but that of an oc- 
casional amanuensis and the printer. Some indulgence 
therefore must be granted, if, with all these disadvantages* 
I do now and then omit a reference. One cannot always 
be equally alert, and I think almost every fair scholar will 
rather be inclined to give me credit for having done so 
much, than to blame me that I have not done more. So 
much for my own defence on this and all similar occasion. 

Let us now see what the E. R's. boast amounts to. 
He says, " We will conclude our remarks on it with a list 
of those passages in the pla}^ which are not noticed by the 
learned editor as being quoted by the antient authors." 
vv. 1.2.3.4. 5. 6.44. 59. 60. 79.105.248.250. 327.329. 
350. 355. 365. 378. 437. 457. 575. 592. 610. 611. 612. 
667. 704. 730. 764, 802. 979. — When he gives us this not- 
able list, to what does it amount ? Merely to thirty 
two numbers. I say numbers, not passages, for there is 
no specification. — I may write down 320 numbers and 
say that I give a list of passages quoted by antient 

authors.' 



26 

authors. Who is to disprove me, unless he reads through 
every antient author without exception. To give a real 
air of scholarship and truth to his assertions, he should 
say, vv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Schol. Aristoph. Kan. V. 82 G. 
v. 2. Stcph. Byzant. in EkvQm. Eustath : ad Dionys. 
Pericg. v. 74. kc. and so of the rest. By such specifi- 
cation he would have proved his accurate knowledge 
of the passages he alluded to. 

/& £i.<*>/s *-?■*£** - But this is not all. Of the thirty two passages which 

/£•>*' 7/ /gr "^ the E. II. states to be omitted, fifteen are actually referred 

,l/v . *i* ' T^~U- t0 k} 7 Stanley in his notes, and one by H. Stephens. Now 

•_' r it was obvious that I could not properly refer to these. 

**- V ^jQ/&-/£^ s would be actum agere, a useless labour, if not a 

.• a **■ y, f plagiarism. But that I may at least exempt myself from 

n jL- * ^^_r - the charge of iqnorance on this subject, I beg leave to 



inform the E. R. that I have now on the table before me 
*rr \.*L***-G a collection of passages, which I am willing to shew him 



or any other person who may chuse to look at them. 



/ 



Supposing the E. R. to have pointed out 16 passages 
in which iEschylus is quoted by antient authors that 
have escaped my " reading and memory," he should in 
the whole 7 plays be able to point out. 112 such passages. 
But in the list which I allude to, and which I have sub- 
mitted to the inspection of a tribunal from which the 
E. R. can have no appeal, to no less a scholar than the 
friend I have alluded to in the beginning of this letter, 
I have just 829 such passages. Now I tell the Reviewer, 
that 358 of these, or thereabout, belong to the Frag- 
ments : therefore, according to Cocker (as the Reviewer 
would perhaps call him, not knowing that there is 
high critical authority for calling him Cocker, and 

still 



Pi 






Rev. S. B. Dr. 
Quotations received or 
allowed for . , » 119 



27 

still higher for Cockin, but I can forgive his want of Cc^A-^ cJ^> 
" reading and memory" in this instance), if from 829 P*~ **^'ltc*ji~ui. 
you subtract 358 there remain 471. Now the account i^^f^^c^c^. 
of pedantry between the E. R. and myself stands thus : ,/! / ^^»— A+-^' 

E. R. in Account with Bev. S. B* , - ^, ^ • 

Rev. S. B. Cr. 
By certain quotations from 

antient authors ♦ . .471 
By fragments ditto . . . 358 

829 
Received or allowed for in 
part of payment . . . 112 

Balance due to the Rev. S. B. 7 IT 

So that, at present, the balance is considerably in my 
favour. 

I do not think it worth while to follow the Reviewer 
through the remainder of this paragraph, as it is rather a 
flourish on extraneous subjects, than closely applicable 
to the merits of my edition. 

* c For kct,Tio-xvxvu<rQ&i 9 v. 269, Porson preferred 
xaTt^am«r6a», quasi Arviy.ur^ov ; and suggests that these 
are of the same class of words as I^Qa^w and s^Oga^, ad 
Orest. 292. This we doubt ; and are inclined to think 
that icrx^va, or rather jV^a**/, and to-xvaivu, are distinct 
words, not only in form, but in meaning and etymologi- 
cal origin. The scholiast, by his gloss hapua-bai, seems 
to have read KaT^avsro-Gaj. But xa,ri<Tx?xvt?abai, which 
was a conjecture of Stanley's, and is supported by one 
manuscript of good note, uiioJisgrved-by Mr. Butler, is /•«• «^*^**^% 
surely more in the style of iEschylus, and is besides con- ^ M ^' 
firmed by several similar passages." — This paragraph is 

E not 



28 

not very intelligible, but the assertion in it is in direct 

opposition to the fact, and to the statement of my note, 

h<r *»^>.A ; which says t; lXvst hie versus in Colb. 2. Stanleii 

h*t • A* m> 1 mknpationrm KUTurx^^Ta^ai, in tcxtum rcccpcrunt Pors. 

UriLcC is *i*A. Schu tz. 2, . 

" In v. 351. the late Professor's certain correction 
was 0o^ov, oo-tk; olvTtrrri 0«o»v, omitting -nra<r»j', which is here 
a needless intruder, as are -era? and its cases in many 
other passages : see Valckn. ad Phceniss. 509. For 
toxaiv Mr. Butler would substitute povo; ; to which we 
have no other objection than that Typhon was not the 
only antagonist of the Gods." — It would seem from the 
first of these sentences that / had not considered <ma,a-» 
as a needless intruder, yet my words are " diutius con- 
sideranti visum est ejicere *ra<m, quam vocem glossa- 
toris esse crediderim." I might say something in 
defence of my emendation povoq, but 1 willingly acknow- 
ledge the beauty of the late Professor's emendation 
©Vk, which is not unfrequently used in this manner for o ?J 
and which may perhaps be well translated into latin by 
the words qui quidem. The remainder of this long 
paragraph, as having nothing to do with my book, I 
willingly omit. It contains a puerile ostentation of 
learning on a matter about as important as whether 
having once written the word and in three letters, we 
may ever be allowed to write it in the well known 
contraction. 

" Mr. Butler has not remarked, that in v. 437, 
Porson's correction wpotweW/nevov, is derived from a cor- 
rupt gloss of the author of the Etymologicon Magnum, 
who quotes a commentary on the Prometheus Vinctus," 

The 



29 

The passage has been already quoted at full length by 



lev, in nis notes. t*~* *?+ 



Stanley, in his notes. fa~*~ ^ t^f*^** 



" Nor is it noted that Valcknaer, in Theoc. Adoniaz. 
p. 354, adopts the common reading ni\ovg* y in v. 451. 
for which much might be said : and the principal objec- 
tion to it, viz. that the first syllable in aly» is long, might 
with equal force be urged against hurpfii, itct^v^ and 
similar words. We are, however, inclined to think with 
D'Arnaud ad Hesych. p. 6. (whose remark Schutz has 
pilfered) that vMwq» is the genuine reading." — My note 
is, Aiefcrygoi Cant. 1. quod certe non est Atticum. 'A*«/goi 
Turneb. eleganter, me judice, et sic Grot, in Excerpt. 
Brunck. Schutz. Pors. Arnald. Lect. Grsec. 1. 1. Nihili * 
est emendatio Pauwii, asfc-opo*, h. e. ipso interprete, qua in 
cavernis quasi sepultos habitant semper : credebat scil. vir 
cl. penultimam in atio-vpq produci, quia prima in ofyv 
producta legitur, at «.i\ffvpq a vtfo eadem analogia deducit 
Heath, qua a (*c6%lugopa.h, ^a.^v^^a.i^ ^<x.^u^io^on i a vro%q>vpu 9 
wQgtpuguif wogQvgeoi;* Quin, quod caput est uverv^g apud 
Tryphiodorum in penultima corripi monet." After { 
reading this note, I will request you to tell me where I 
am to look for the Reviewer's candour, or justice, or 
honesty. 

" The punctuation of vv. 461. et seqq. which is 
referred to Porson, should have been attributed to Tyr- 
whitt." I profess to give the punctuation of Porson's 
edition, and I have given it accordingly. What would 
the Reviewer have said if I had omitted it ? /**«*«*. co**^_c- 

E 2 " Neither 



" Neither Schutz, nor Brunck, nor Mr. Butler, 
pemembered that the concluding- verses of the fragment 
of Moschion, which they cite from Stoboeus at v. 467, 
are corrected bj Daniel lleinsius in his Crepundia Sili- 
ana p. 35S." I have already answered this remark 
at p. 24. 

" On v. 587 we differ from the learned editor, who 
prefers £$&.» to a^v. We side with Aristarchus, who 
wrote the latter in his two editions of Homer, while 
Nicias doubled the £" — I dare say you know that all 

*£** c*r**£ '/this parade of learning is contained in Eustath. ad_ll. 

^3#m« ?*^^#J£uB2? (I am forced to quote from the Basil edition, 
for alas ! I am not worth the Roman one, which is so 
precious to every scholar) ; and I trust you will smile 
with me at the solemn and condescensive gravity with 
which the stripling Re viewer proceeds to range himself 
under the banners of Aristarchus against Nicias. But to 
have referred the reader directly to the passage in 
Eustathius (which an}- body who lives in Cambridge can 
do by the help of the Roman edition), would have been 
to make him as wise as the Reviewer, and would have 
greatly lessened the importance of this magnificent and 
oracular declaration. To say nothing of the sly com- 
parison which perhaps the Reviewer intended to draw 
between Aristarchus and himself. Homer's line is 

'Al/ctgUV slX0[X£VUV iluQoTtq sbfiiVM oI^yiv. 

Eustathius observes that Nicias wrote ol$hv with a lene 
and double &, but that Aristarchus wrote it with an 
aspirate and a single & I believe that Aristarchus was 
right in so doing, when he derived it from &$u for ^<y, 
rather than from $fos satkias; yet I rather incline to 

ran £e 



31 

range myself under the standard of Nicias in this in- 
stance, because I uniformly find the first syllable in ah* 
and its derivates short, and because I find the ^ doubled 
not only in olhv but in some of its derivates even in prose 
writers and in lexicographers ; which I consider as quite 
sufficient authority. Besides, if the Reviewer's argu- 
ment proves any thing, it proves too much ; for it will 
follow that if he sides with Aristarchus he must not write 
«&»», but «&}», so that he has not had the dexterity to 
make use of his materials properly : at least he has 
displayed his learning at the expence of his accuracy. So 
much for the Homeric passage ; what are the opinions of 
modern commentators respecting it I cannot tell, as I do 
not possess Heyne's Homer, but I suppose he notices the 
variation. However, as to the point in question, my note 
is " "a^v, Brunck. Schutz. Pors. Retineo £$w 9 quia in eo 
consentiunt codices, nee repugnat metrum. Hesych. 
"a^jjv. eU xoqqv tt») eI$ 'Tc'h-nepww" The object, therefore, of 
my note is to acknowledge that uhv is the more usual form, 
and to give my reason, not for preferring, but merely for 
not altering that deviation, which may be supported by 
abundant authority, and which, if I were disposed to 
cavil, I could defend on stronger etymological grounds 
than the Reviewer is probably aware of. 

" Mr. Butler seldom notices the Attic form of « for y 
(which in fact is only the most antient orthography, 
retained after the invention of the h), as w£o0ty«r 631 ; 
and often quotes passages without making this correction. 
At v. 723, he writes thus, "if* Colb. 2 Ask. B. C. D. 
Cant. 2. Jr. Brunck. Schutz. P or son ;' whereas, in fact, 
Porson has l'fa as usual." — I will confess to you, my 
dear Sir, I did really start up from my chair when I read 

this 



.•?2 

]f^ ./,>'• ■ mcncc, from astonishment at the Reviewer's 



/£**.*« *«" ' ( - 



*< .t 



t 



4~& ******* 



, temerity. At v. 34, I write " «t>©srsH». Rectius Pors. 



i'u * 



g* ') / i^Adf^vta (mam foraawn s$cuqds persons in praesentibus et 

^ x jf <c < ) A< i'muris vulgo in n tcrminatis UBIUUE servat ; qnin et ubi 
ex*/ ^ ~ n ~* ] ltr metrum licet, $» pro civ semper scribit, et simpliciter 
\jp9***~r ml et in compositis ; et ytytfe** y$ywp*», QUOD SEMEL 
^/ l ^"JYmQ 1 S\T\JM SUFFICIAT. Porson's practice in observ. 
1 <<•"/* s/*£& m S tncse Atticisms being correct and uniform, after 
/^2* 7^L~/- having once stated these well known circumstances I did 
TV>«l^X A**** notchuseto repeat them, usque ad nauseam, in every 
f tip, 'S't+'^^XwiQ. What critic living, except a schoolboy Reviewer, 
4 ***** **- xv h c perhaps thought these familiar Atticisms were Por- 

a . sonian novelties, will not allow that I have said enough 

on the subject ? When therejJQra-Lfflrote %$ Pors. it was 
impossible for any human being not to know that I must 
inean Pbrson to have edited %»», But why then did I 
notice it at all ? Because Stanley's reading is neither 
2J* nor r| S f, but yj^. I am therefore not stating a differ- 
ence between *'!,* and ;|st, but between *'|ij and ^|e»j. For 
shame, young Gentleman, for shame I 

" He commends Pauw for his alteration of (p^oyuwu; 
from pwfaofkeA because the latter would have its last 
syllable long. His praise is rightly bestowed, but his 
reason is unfortunate ; inasmuch as the accusative femin- 
ine of the plural number from pxoyaTro?, is pAoywn-ous, and 
not <pAoyw7ri ? ." This again is incorrectly stated. My 
remark goes to shew that Pauw is sometimes obliged to 
use accents, though he generally rejects them. Now I 
state, that $>.oyZ<7rz$ with the accent on its second syllable, 
will come from fAty^g and have its last syllable short 
But that if we retain the common reading 9*oya?r«$, with 



33 

the accent on the last sellable, it can only -come front 

^>/\oy<ycro?, tphoyuny, (phoyunov, but in that case it WCMlId 

have its last syllable long : therefore a spondee would be 
allowable in the first foot of a trochaic hepthemimer, or, 
if the Reviewer pleases, in the fourth place of an Iambic 
verse, which is impossible ; therefore it cannot come 

from such a Word as <pAoyw7ro?, (pXoyuTry, QXoywjrov* Q,. E. D, 

" In v. 802, Mr. Butler seems inclined to prefet 
'AxpocyyiTs, the lection exhibited by Aldus, and one MS. 
to the common reading b^xyus, on the authority of 
Hesychius, and the Etymol. Magn. We will, however, 
venture to pronounce, that there is no such word as 
d*pxyyn$ 9 which certainly appears prima facie, an anomo- 
lous compound, and is, we conceive, unsupported by any 
sufficient vouchers." — I shall be content with the autho- 
rity of Hesychius and the Etymol. M. till the E, Re- 
viewer produces better. Certainly his own ipse dixit 
will not satisfy me — and I will help him to some analo- 
gies which will vouch for dxf*yyfa. 'Ay.focyyrx is derived 
from a intensive and xgajw-, which makes in the future 
x§af«. And K^uyyv, which I think the learned Reviewer 
will not maintain should be written with a single y, comes 
from xA«£iy, which makes in the future x*a|w, But why ? 
. since K^xaa and Wkxvu are the regular futures ? The 
reason is obvious. Both verbs convey an onomatopoeia ! 
both were originally xxdyyu and *%xyya. Hence the 
futures ttKayZu and x^ayfw, h e e. xXayy^and Y.^xyyav, hence 
xhayyy) and x§ayy*j, hence dn£*yyw* In like manner, from 
an obsolete tense of (pUyyo^ca comes (pboyyy. 

" The common reading of v. 677, Ae§njj dxpp n 
is defended by Mr. Butler on geographical grounds ; 

but 



.34 

but we fear that the incorrectness of the construction is 
Sufficient to condemn it." — Neither I, nor any other 
scholar whom I have had an opportunity of consulting, 
can perceive the incorrectness alluded to. ufo governs 
the accusative §10? and the accusative ax^r, and I see 
nothing objectionable in the situation of the particle n. 

" For the sake of avoiding an anapaest in the fifth 
place v. 6SI, the learned editor supposes an extraordinary 
ISynircsis [sic E. 11 ] of »o into one syllable, making cttytihoq 
a trisyllable. This, however, we confidently state to 
be impossible, there being no analogy between this, and 
the Latin Arjete, Consiljum, Nasidjenus, Fluvjorum and 
the like, which are enumerated by Eentley ad Horat. 
Serm. II. 8. 1., and after him by the Reviewer 
before mentioned. As a similar instance, is adduced 
AlyvKTioyirn from the Persse. 35, where Erunck, as Schutz 
remarks, e acutely observes, that AlywirioyMfls is a word of 
five syllables, as in Euripides, Phoen. 684. eyj?Afo»oi is to 
be so pronounced that Mow shall form a trochee.' This 
latter passage Musgrave has corrected, by reading Ewfaow, 
and it is surprising thatBrunck, Schutz, and Mr. Butler, 
with the reading of the Codex Mosquensis and Turnebus 
before their eyes, viz. AlyvTrroys^;, as it is printed also by 
Porson, should have persisted in retaining a word, which* 
independently of its false metre, is an anomalous com- 
pound ; for we do not find Kafy^oys*^, Kvw^oyfi^, 

YovoioyivviS) but KafyteyEvvtf, Kvsrgoysws, Hovaiyevvi; " — I cer- 
tainly have written hastily here. The fact is, that I have 
constantly referred all I have to say on the subject, and 
I have much to say on it, to the Persse v. 35 ; because 
Brunck has a note on that passage, in which I differ from 
him ; and there I combat his opinions, and have, as the 

E. R. 



35 

E. R. or any of his friends may see, if they wish to inspect 
my MS. most decidedly preferred Alyvvloyevfa. I should 
therefore have written, est enim synalcepha in (0 de qua 
vide ad Persas, v. 35 ; for, while I oppose Brunck in the 
passage referred to, I adduce a good many instances of 
synalcepha and synizesis. But as this will come in the 
form of a regular note, I must not now anticipate it. 

" Mr. Butler prefers 2u $ ; but we are of opinion that 
Brunck is right ; for, by this alteration, we avoid a devi- 
ation from the idiom of the Tragoedians, which requires 
'hocx^ov osrepfA* cry & Stephanus Byz. in v. 'h*xf* has 
ol' t 'lya;#rov o-w. ; which is an evident corruption of a-6 r. 
— A common practice among the Tragoedians, and in- 
deed among other writers, is to pat the vocative case 
first, and then the pronoun, and then the particle £s. So 
in this very play, v. 3. Hpa^s <nt £s ^pJ». — But we have 
V.,63ft^'2r£W, for ,2 «w, <rb ft. Pers. v. 834. 2$ I' Z 
■yefuidi 9 Eumen. v. 89. 

'EpiAvjf (pv'hcuro'i 

There is no necessity therefore for adopting the reading 
of Brunck, and & better distinguishes the conversion of 

the speech from the Chorus to the wretched Io. Any 

Greek scholar must be intuitively sensible of this, with- 
out its being necessary for me to add a word more, 

" V.769. has sadly perplexed the critics. We shall pass 
over their various conjectures ; observing merely, that Mr. 
Butler adopts the correction of Mr. Tate, V ph xubu y av U 
hffykuv lycj, to which we have the same objection as to that 
of Brunck, viz. that the transposition of tyuy\ and the 
changing it into i y », materially weakens its force. But, in 
our apprehension, the difficulty is to be surmounted by 
F so 



36 

so certain and easy a correction, that we arc surprized at 
its bavins hitherto eluded all the critics. Most of the 
IVtSS. and editions nave «•{}» ?yuy x* U ^w^s* ?u/93. Aldus, 
however, and Robortellus exhibit «»}» a» fyey ■* ^/*w» AuG£. 

One MS. the Medieean, gives xv9sU ; from which three 
variations the genuine reading is easily framed, — ov fex 
t;»» x* syu>y at I* ha-pw *y9i£j. The corruption proceeded 
from the ignorance of the copyists, who were offended 
by the recurrence of the *». This particle, however, is 
repeated in a similar manner, Eurip. Hecub. 736 ; Med. 
369 ; Alcest. 73 ; Helen. 299 ; as corrected by Porson ; 
and ap. Stob. tit. xxi ; and, after an interval even less 
than the present, iEsch. Supp. 77S. Soph, in Phaedra, 
ap. Stob. Floril. xliii. p. 163. Trachin. 755. as corrected 
in a MS. note by Porson — p*?&h rfc «v hvxir xv uywrov 
wots**; which correction was rendered necessary by the 
double >. A similar remedy must be applied to a frag- 
ment of Sophocles ap. Plut. Sympos. Prob. 9. ticxnx rx 
ytvn to w(>Zto» l^iv xvxi-, which Valcknaer. Diatr. p. 222. 

corrects xttxvt* rocysvmrx vrgurov ?a9' aTraf,-— read rxyivnra.. 

That great scholar has erred in a similar manner, Diat. 
p. 13, by reading ^6<; ayirvvirat for wfa ru» aytvav in a frag- 
ment of Euripides. In the verse before us, AvQei? is edit- 
ed by Porson, which introduces a fine aposiopesis." — 
There is much misrepresentation in this long and desul- 
tory note. My note is, " npiN Ernr' an. uAv eyuy *» 
Med. Gud. apud Schutz. Guelph. n£v k» tyay Aid. Rob. 
n%U y syuy av Pauw. qui tamen haud negat *£* produci 
posse. Cf. v. 480.* Sed post w£> solet y\ geminari, ut 

apud 

* I beg leave to say, however, that I cannot agree with 
Pauw. My reading there is, n§»» y lyu . Nor do 1 know any 
instance where U^v is used long in the tragoedians, except in a 
corrupted place. 



37 

#pud Homer, saepissime ; itaque fateor tt^U y iyay a» 
mihi placere, quod Heathio etiam placuit sed Morello 

improbatur. Tl£v lyu y ot,v Giac. Ti^lv y ocv e*Av0<y Siapav 

lyu Brunck. Melius, mejudice, vir doctissimus Jac. Tate 

K(>)v XvQ& y av U ho-pav \yu, Tl£v f tyay Pors. 2."— Hence it 

appears that I do not adopt the reading of Mr. Tate, to 
whom, as an excellent scholar, I beg leave to offer this 
public testimony of my respect. I merely say, that Mr. 
Tate's reading, n£v \vb% y u» U ha-^uv ey<y, is better than 
Brunck's reading, «•§»» y * £ u UhvQv &*p3» «y«, in which I 
believe most scholars will join with me. But I say that 
the reading which I prefer is the simpler, *§'» y lyuy «?, 
and my reason for preferring it is, because the y ele- 
gantly qualifies the preceding broad assertion of « fe». 
— It would seem also from the E. R. as if I had neglect- 
ed to notice Porson's reading and the aposiopesis, 
which is directly contrary to the fact. Though the 
reading is indeed not Mr. Porson's, but older than H. 
Stephens, whose note on it and the consequent aposio- 
pesis I have given at full length. But I shall here 
hope to be pardoned, if I venture to investigate the real 
cause of this misrepresentation. You will be shocked to 
discover that this rogue of a Reviewer has been peeping 
into your common-place book, and though he praises 
his own conjecture with no small complacency, it is but 
justice to all parties that the world should know he has 
stolen it from the Rev. C. J. Blomfield, of Trin. Coll. 
This very conjecture, irfiv av iyuy »» fa ho-puv Awflefe, was 
shewn to me when I was last at Cambridge as your's, 
by the Greek Professor, who at the same time told me - ^^^t^t 
of your intention to publish an edition of iEschylus. I j 
then demurred to the correction, as I do still, thinking 
that which I have preferred (not Mr. Tate's, but Heath's) 
more probable. 

F 2 * We 



38 

N We arc surprised, that, after the very probable 
correction of yumd* for ©*sr£o«, v. 828. suggested by 
Poison ad Oust. 324, Mr. Butler should quote the com- 
mon lection in a note on the Supplices, as authority for 
&*vt$a. We may remark, that the passage of Steplmnus 
Byzantinus, adduced by the late Professor, furnishes us 
with a correction of the Venetian Scholia ad II. A. 2. 
where, for x^viha should be read xwihu. Hesych. 
r«cr£^«. aygoixoi x.cu olxiiw, read uy^a ©txT»oi ; which con- 
jecture is, we think, sufficiently established by the 
passages of Stephanus and the Scholiast just mentioned. 
The agreement of all the MSS. in $*wf&a. is certainly a per- 
plexing circumstance ; but no doubt remains on our minds 
of the truth of the above correction, and we suspect that 
the copyists, who were much more versed in Homer than 
in the Attic writers, introduced this word for yun^x, 
which did not happen to be of their acquaintance." — 
Who will not be surprized on referring to my book to 
find that I have quoted the Professor's note at full 
length ? but I must observe, that Professor Porson's 
correction is not proposed by himself as necessary. His 
words are, ad Orest. v. 324. 'Avu to Sfathv Brunckius, 
addito articulo. Primam in cun^o* producit ^Esch. Prom. 
v. 828. out si locus corrupius est, et hie &C ibilegendum est 

yairtlov. Steph. Byz. in Voce r£. AgyETat xcu y'Wt^ov To Trpc? 
tok oixcH; tv izotsH Miriov, onty oi tpuyixo) cW t£ u (pua\, SufitpvTtu 

If this be true, we are to construe here M *ocrer« &o-eA» 
" the little back-yards behind the houses in the cities of 
the $iolcssians" a sentiment extremely congenial to the 
di°nity of the JEschylean buskin ; and we are to construe 
(allowing the reading there to be true, which I deny) 
a passage in the Supplices hereafter to be noticed, in a 
more ridiculous manner, making " Jupiter look down 
from his heavenly little back-yard en sinful mortals." 

The 



39 

The Reviewer confesses himself hampered with the 
difficulty arising from the uniform agreement of the 
MSS. in £aWa, and I, who see no reason for changing 
the MSS. when it makes good sense and is confirmed 
by a hundred other instances, am quite content with 
Sun^a, here, and quite unmoved by the Reviewer's 
argument, which in fact amounts to nothing. — His as- 
sertion of the transcribers being more used to Homer 
than Attic Greek, is quite a gratuitous assumption. 

" In v. 837. x zi ^iv P asses unnoticed, though Porson 
and one MSS. have x s ^( ei > We think that Hermann 
justly defends the common reading of v. 858. ; but 
interprets it in a manner which the words, as they now 
stand, will not bear. The explanation given by Siebelis, 
Diatrib. ad Pers. p. 118. which Mr. Butler censures 
somewhat hastily, appears to us judicious and satisfac- 
tory." — The extraordinary difference between x ii p«>fy) 
and x il P° t '& is certainly so great that it was unpardonable 
not to have noticed it. For this I must be allowed to 
plead, as before, the " quod semel monitum sujficiat" 
Good Heavens 1 can you, my dear Sir, sufficiently ad- 
mire the felicity with which the Reviewer blunders ? 
A vaiious reading, as I conceive, means a readino- 
different from the reading of the text. Now as the 
reading of the text, and the reading of " Porson and 
one MS." are exactly the same, I cannot see by what 
right I am to be blamed for omitting in the Varr. Lectt. 
to make a difference between "you are driven" and 
" you arc driven." Many things which appear "judici- 
ous and satisfactory" to " US," h. e. to a stripling Re- 
viewer, do not appear " judicious and satisfactory" to me, 
who have a few more years over my head. The words 

of 



40 

of JFschylus in Stanley's text, which Siebelis professes 
to follow, are 

Talk's, (pQovov $1 au)[jtocrcov t%u 0to?' 
*Ape» $a.[A£VTwv f vvar^^e^ru 6pacre». 

The explanation g iven by Siebelis is, JEgypti filii 
Jhnmidum renabuntiir vuptias, sed illorum ipsis Deus in- 
videbit corpora, (non committet ut iis potiantur) ipsorum 
ir.ro (JEgypti filiorum) a fecminis ccesorum corpora terra 
teget Pelasgica' 1 '' Nova' it does not appear to me "judi- 
cious and satisfactory," but clumsy, forced, and unnatural, 
to refer a-u^ruv in one line $o the person of the Danaides, 
and in the next line to the persons of the Sons of 
/Esfyptus. And this was then, and is now, not my 
hasty ; but my deliberate opinion ; and till I can see in 
good writers similar instances of forced and harsh con- 
struction, I shall not receive the interpretation of 
Charles Godfrey Siebelis, whose merits as a Commentator 
on iEschylus, I have not been accustomed to consider 
as very " satisfactory." — The next paragraph I have 
already answered. 

" We shall now offer a few remarks on the philosophical 
[philological] commentary. This opens with a long and 
curious note of Mr. Butler's friend Joannes Muller, written 
in most crude and inelegant Latin, which we are actually 
at a loss to construe, much more to comprehend. We 
wish that Mr. Butler, if prevented by respect for his 
illustrious correspondent, from consigning these remarks 
to his Adversaria, or the flames, had thrown them to- 
gether in the form of an excursus, which, in company 
with those of Christian Godfrey Schutz, would have 
formed a pretty appendix to the volume. We highly 

approve 



41 

approve of this method, which has been pursued by 
commentators of the stamp of the late Mr. Muller, as it 
leaves the reader more at liberty as to the perusal of their 
crude and uninteresting speculations." — " Mr. Butler's 
friend Joaunes Muller," was considered by every man of 
literary pretensions on the Continent, as one of the most 
profound and most universal scholars that ever lived in 
any age or country. The whole host of scholars bowed 
before him. Such was this great man, the stupendous 
depth and variety of whose learning obtained for him. 
the willing homage of the whole lettered Continental 
world, of whom we are told, by a boy Reviewer, " We 
beg leave, however, to enter a vigorous protest against 
the publication of any more of the lucubrations of Mr. 
Muller; which, to speak the truth plainly, are most 
unqualified nonsense, and serve only to augment the 
bulk of commentaries already too voluminous." — Muller 
was called on the Continent the Tacitus of his age ; 
his profound and philosophical mind led him to adopt 
the style of Tacitus, rather than of Cicero. Not because 
he wanted taste to appreciate the beauties of the latter, 
but because his congeniality of deep reflection naturally 
induced him to express himself in the sententious brevity 
of the former. The latin of the note in question is not 
crude and inelegant, but it is close and abrupt, rather 
than flowing and unconfined. If the E. R. cannot con- 
strue or comprehend the note in question, that is not my 
fault. I am able to construe and comprehend it myself, 
and I am not obliged to furnish him with intellect and 
capacity.* 

The 

* Mr. Muller's profound historical researches led him to con- 
sider the text of iEschylus philosophically rather than critically ? 
and if he paid attention rather to things than to syllables, he is not 

the 



42 

" The philological notes of Mr. Butler himself are 
generally learned and useful ; we regret that they are not 
more thickly scattered thro' this tedious mass of commen- 
tary ; since there are still many singularities of language 
and construction, which are passed over in silence. Wc 
could have wished, also, that those passages and phrases 
of Homer had been noted, which /Eschylus has imitated 
or adopted : these are not a few, and are worthy of 
remark, as iEschylus is known to have been a warm 
admirer of the father of Grecian song, and to have 
termed his own compositions ' crumbs of the Homeric 
banquet.' We cannot refrain from transcribing, for 
the edification and amusement of our readers, a note of 
John Midler's on v. 186. 'Quanta his Jobus srquivoca 
dixit! Magnitudo duoruni auctorum summte antiquitatis 
similitudinem habet ; altior tamen AUSITIDENSIS ; 

(i. e. 



the less instructive. I must say, not having in this' instance the fear 
of the young Reviewer before my eyes, that I think, even where his 
interpretations may perhaps be considered as not strictly relative to 
the passage in question, there is such an air of learning, of deep 
thinking, and philosophical research in his notes, that to those who 
love to mix geographical, historical, or political knowledge with 
their more useful studies of genitive and dative cases, they will 
always be very acceptable. The late Mr. Bryant, who was much 
more eccentric in his disquisitions than " my friend Joannes Muiler," 
in his notes upon iEschylas, was nevertheless, I suspect, almost as 
good a scholar as the E. Reviewer, who, with whatever disrespect 
he may be disposed to treat the singularities, or, as he might per- 
haps call them, the conundrums of that great man, will never per- 
suade me, because I differ from him, to hold him in contempt. In 
fact, it is no uncommon thing for the most profound scholars to 
advance paradoxes, originating, not merely from a love of singularity 
and superiority above the vulgar throng, but from their discovery of 
the great uncertainty of all human knowledge. Many are the in- 
stances which might be adduced in proof of this, not only in philo 
logy, but in medicine, in theology, in history, and in every brand* 
of science. 



43 



(u e. the man of Uz.) Gracus ad humaniorem pwOoXoyfcw 
delabitur? This is more in the style (we do not mean 
as to the Latinity) of Justus Lipsius and Vincentius Obso- 
pseus, than any thing we have read in the labours of 
modern commentators, except some of the lucubrations 
of Schutz." — While I thank the Reviewer for his con- 
descensive civility, I beg leave to say, that I believe my 
notes will be found as numerous as those of any other 
commentator. It is very difficult to say what are sin- 
gularities of language. What one person, not widely 
conversant with the circle of Greek literature, may think 
a singularity, another, who has taken a more extensive 
range, and has enjoyed greater opportunities of remark, 
may think no singularity at all. I remember, when a 
boy, eagerly noting down such words as ot»2* & vw) & 
&Tocr} in Aristophanes, A very few pages in that author 
made me smile at the unnecessary pains I had taken. 
With regard to Homer, my only fear is that too much 
has been brought forward. The Reviewer, in his critique 
on my notes, appears to have forgotten Stanley's, to 
which I beg to refer him, only remarking, that it would 
have been useless tautology in me to repeat what he had 
already said. Of Midler's note, I can only observe, 
that it appears to me a very judicious one. He com-' 1 
pares certain expressions of iEschylus with others which 
are put into the mouth of Job ; and asserts the superiority 
of the sacred above the heathen writer. Mr. Muller 
probably had in view, besides many other passages, Job 
cli. xix. and if the reader is not " edified and amused" 
and delighted, and awestruck, by the sublimity of that 
chapter, he must have certain defects of head and heart, 
which, if he values his happiness, he will do well to get 
cured of with all imaginable speed. Mr. Mulier's com- | 
~G parison 

^V r r 




c*s 



~~&& 









#1& 



'.•l^t^S 






44 

pirisoh between the sacred ami profane writers, and his 
judicious observations on the result of that comparison, I 
am sure will net be treated by any reflecting person with 
contempt ; ami 1 really do not think the writer of the 
E, R. would himself encourage flippancy on such an 
occasion. lam persuaded, that, even on slight reflec- 
tion, lie will join with me in wishing that sentence 
unwritten. 

" We are surprised at the implicit deference which 
Mf. "Butler pays to the authority of Hesychius, Suidas, 
and the author of the Etymologicon Magnum, whose 
lexicons are three of the most corrupt books extant in 
any language. Indeed it requires considerable caution 
and discernment to use the works of the lexicographists 
and grammarians with advantage," &c. — I pay no im- 
plicit deference to these lexicons ; I frequently r quote 
them, Hesychius especially, for reasons known to every 
scholar. Unquestionably the text of Hesychius is cor- 
rupt, but who does not know, that, by the labours of 
Alberti and Ruhnkenius, it is perhaps the very best edited 
book in the whole compass of Greek literature ? Who 
does not know, that the words of Hesychius are taken, not 
at random, but from passages selected very largely from 
the tragedians ? Who does not know, that his glosses in 
many instances lead to the specific passage ? Who does 
not know, how much he has taken from iEschylus ? 
Finally, if the Reviewer wanted authority for an English 
word, where would he direct his search rather than to 
Johnson's Dictionary ? But it is quite futile to argue 
longer on such a subject, and the E. R. is ready enough 
to admit the authority of these very lexicographers, 
whenever it is convenient to him. 

"A 



45 

u A singular etymology is proposed for *w>n$ at v. 575. 
Mr. Butler derives it from *h and o-ruo-is — ' errabunda.' 
To this we demur, &c." — This Reviewer is not to blame 
me for proposing the etymology, but the Schol. £. (to 
whose authority, as it makes against him in this instance, 
I suppose he will demur), who says, lr*%npmi a-niuv n r cio-iv$, 
and again, v. 601, 'Ereg^jw? T%o<pv$ xex.) rwn»$. And the 
Schol. A. on v. 601, says, reypawra* $\ «** rvrwy k* tS i?, 

xki tS racrt 5 . With the remainder of this passage, intro- 
duced for no other purpose than a flourish, I have 
nothing to do ; and I therefore omit it for the sake of 
brevity. 

" No notice is taken of the learned illustration and 
interpretation of v. 862, by Ruhnken, who renders l v 
ctpayoLw < in jugulo? and supports his opinion by a 
variety of references ; nor of Porson's remark on the 
Hecub. 1125, concerning the active usage of mros in v; 
925." — Gently, gently, my good lad 1 Wait tilj you . 
come to Again, v. 1608, «/*7ri«r1i* ¥ xwo vQwfit HfS^i where \ 
you will find Heath translates kicl aQayns ex Jugulo, and ! 
where you will also find what I have to say on this mat- ' 
ter. Yet even if I had overlooked a note in such an I 
immense mass of materials as I have had to arrange I 
should not have considered this as more than a venial 
error, for which I believe I should have readily found 
indulgence from any candid person. But what am I to 
say to the Reviewer, who not having such trouble of 
selection, and having my book, as I suppose, on the 
table, has in this very sentence committed an infinitely 
greater offence ? Any man, in a far less difficult under- 
taking than mine, may be guilty of an omission, but 
G2 what 






■ ' ■' -' < ' n *■ &**€*£+* ts*t\ ^ 

what excuse has he for an insertion in direct opposition 



to truth ? How will the Reviewer justify his declaration 
that I have 4 taken no notice of the remark of Professor 
Person on the Hec. v. 1125. when I refer him to 
my words, l n»rc? defendit Heath ex Steph. Thcsanro 
et Heathio longc doctior Porsonus, ad Eurip. Hec. 
v. 1115.' Surely he will not avail himself of the idle 
subterfuge that v. 11 1 5 is printed by error of the press 
for 1125, especially as Porson has no note on v. 1115. 
I cannot think he will shelter himself under the mean- 
ness of a typographical quibble, especially as he commits 
more than a similar one in this very sentence, where, for 
925, we should read 916.* 

" We are somewhat surprised that Mr. Butler should 
coincide with Morell in his strange version of v. 1000. 

ixte'iS fiurr t 9 f« xfyt eflrtfj Trccfyyopwv. ( Til mihl, velut fluctlLSy 

mclestits 



* I lake this opportunity to apologise to the E. R. for my 
scanty display of Greek quotations in this letter. And to my readers 
in general, for any errors they may observe in the accentuation or 
even the orthography of the Greek -words 1 have unavoidably intro- 
duced — In fact, though the printer of this pamphlet is very accurate 
and intelligent where his own language is concerned, yet living in a 
country town, he has little occasion for Greek types, and possesses 
but a very small supply of them ; and the use of that small number 
is again cramped by the difficulty of setting them, a circumstance 
which has delayed the publication of this letter very greatly. I 
have therefore been obliged, greatly to my mortification, to abstain 
from quoting and emending a variety of fragments from Achseus 
the Eretrian, Plato Comicus, Sopater, Astydamas, &c. &c. &c. &c. 
which, though very little to the purpose, yet if lugged in by the 
head and shoulders, would have served to illustrate my extensive 
readings and to astonish the unlearned, I hope, however, if I 
should live to edit a single play of Euripides, to gratify the learned 
and overwhelm the unlearned world, with a copious inundation of 
certain conjectures and unexceptionable canons. 



vr 

molestus es persuadendo? in which they follow M. Apo- 
stolus. The usual and obvious mode of construing is 
confirmed to certainty, by similar expressions in the 
Andromache v. 538, and in Medea 23 ; see also Samson 
Agonistes 960." — I give my reason, because I think 
Virgil has imitated, and in his imitation has explained the 
passage ; but the Reviewer in fairness should have stated 
that I give both interpretations and leave the reader to 
chuse which he pleases ; either make good sense, and 
are supported by classical authorities, but from the use 
of the word ox*t?<; I conceive my interpretation some- 
what preferable ; if he was deaf as the waves he could 
not be troubled by the discourse of Mercury. Still I 
am not tenacious of my interpretation, in my notes, or 
even at present. I leave it to the taste of the reader. 
The remainder of this paragraph I may omit. For the 
sake of brevity I omit the next paragraph ; which, with 
an air of condescensive impartiality, conveys the general 
language of complimentary civility. I shall only re- 
mark, that I have done what I considered my duty in 
referring rather to the original writers than to their 
successors of the Dutch school, but that (as is admitted 
by the Reviewer in the subsequent number) / have ex* 
traded largely from the writers of that school, whatever I 
found to the purpose. It is somewhat singular that the 
list of Dutch Worthies, Hemsterhusius, Valkenarius, 
piersonus, Koenius, Ruhnkenius, occurs in one para- 
graph of a late publication, by a writer of whose learning 
and experience I entertain a much higher opinion than I 
do of the E, R. This, however, may be an accidental 
coincidence, for I do not mean to insinuate that the 
E. R. has been poaching for a list of the Dutch critics 
on that manor. 

" The 



48 

a The copious enumeration of Various Lections 
which is contained in the critical commentary, will be of 
great utility to future editors of jEschylus, but we cannot 
hel[) observing that although we are now presented with a 
very useful mass of collectanea, the volumes before us can 
scarcely be termed part of a * new edition* of iEschylus." 
The next paragraph and the subsequent quotation from 
Schutz are in direct opposition to the former part of this 
sentence, and are brought for the purpose of expressly 
contradicting it ; the latter part of the sentence I really 
cannot understand. If an editor who gives anew con- 
stitution of the text, an original and copious commen- 
tary on it, collations of inedited MSS. and inedited 
remarks of the first scholars, on almost every line of the 
text, cannot be said to have given a new edition of a 
work, I would humbly ask the E. E. by what name he 
would designate his labours ? The two next paragraphs 
are palpably contradictory of the preceding, and are as 
follows. " We will conclude our animadversions on the 
first volume, with a sensible remark made by Schutz in 
the preface to his edition of this author, p. vii. who, it 
appears, afforded a singular instance of being convinced 
of a truth and yet acting in direct opposition to it. 

' Tale editionum genus, utut plurima in iis bona 
insint, propagando inter eruditos homines Grsscarum 
litterarum studio parum prodesse certe scio ; meliusque, 
quamvis minus gloriose, de eo mereri arbitror, qui cu- 
rent, ut correcta, quae merum textum auctorum habeant, 
exemplaria, exiguo pretio venalia in manus studiosorum 
veniant.' 

I can 



49 

I can only account for this singularity by conjectur- 
ing that the 'E. R. has here disclosed the object of his 
whole critique, which I presume to have been no other, 
than to prepare the world for the really new edition of 
i^Eschylus, by the Rev. J. C. Blomfield, " quse merum 
textum auctoris habens, exiguo pretio venalis, in manus 
studiosorum veniat." Which I am thus very happy to 
assist in advertising. 

" We should not omit to observe, that for a know- 
ledge of the corrections which we have stated as the late 
Professor Porson's, we are indebted to the kindness of a 
learned friend, to whom they were originally communi- 
cated." — I shall have more to say on this subject in a 
subsequent remark ; in the mean time, I beg to ask 
/ whether this is a. fair statement ? Being the truth and the 
whole truth ? Whether, with these corrections, certain 
j remarks or references have not also been communicated, 
j which greatly assisted the Reviewer to flourish on this 
v occasion ? * 

I now come to the second part of the performance 
in the E. R. No. xxx. but having dwelt much longeron 
the first than I had intended, I shall be more concise in 
my notice of it. The first paragraph is occupied in 
correcting a blunder, which the Reviewer acknowledges 
himself to have made in the preceding number. In 
doing which he commits another — and another. 

" We have before mentioned our disapprobation of 
his [Mr. Butler's] notion, that these three, with the Sup- 
plies, formed a Tetralogia Promethea, but in doing so 
we inadvertently committed a mistake. The author of 

the 
* EweloE™. H. e. To the intended Select Committee of inspectors 
j of the Porsonian treasures purchased for Trinity College Library. 



<>0 

the argument to the Persrc states, that /Eschylus gained 
the prize in the Archonship of Menon, by the following 
tetralogy, Persir, Glaucus Po'niensis, Phineus, and Pro- 
metheus, ' that is,' we said, ' either the Prometheus 
Vinctus or Solutus ; for the Prometheus lgnifer seems to 
have been a Satyric Drama, as was the Glaucus Potnien- 
sis.' We should have said, the Glaucus Pontius, or 
Marinus ; for the other was a tragedy : the Phineus was 
probably the Satyric Drama of the Tetralogy." — Here 
we have blunder the first continued, and confirmed, for 
an exposition of which see p. 21. We have also the 
following statement : 

First of all the Tetralogy is said to consist of the 
Persog, Glaucus Potniensis, Phineus, and Prometheus 
(Vinctus or Solutus) ; in which tetralogy there were of 
course three tragedies and one Satyric Drama, which the 
Reviewer conjectures to have been the Glaucus Potni- 
ensis. Now he tells us, that he should have said the 
Glaucus Pontius or Marinus ; for the other (meaning 
the Glaucus Potniensis) was a tragedy, (and therefore 
the Glaucus Pontius was a Satyric, Drama). Not con- 
tent with this, he subjoins, " the Phineus was probably 
the satyric drama of the tetralogy." Therefore the 
tetralogy consisted of two tragedies and two satyric 
dramas. I shall leave the learned Reviewer to reconcile 
this mass of inconsistency as well as he can. In the 
subsequent observation there is better sense and judge- 
ment, yet some of the titles of Epicharmus's plays are 

To. yen OaKocaira, - — KvkXcc-^ Upo^Gayj Tlvpxtztvs Sive Ilvpfcz, 

these are surely suspicious titles. — The Reviewer pro- 
ceeds " to supply the deficiencies in my edition of the 
Fragments, taking for the basis of his remarks the text 

Crmvtr £^» s+/S US sy - ^* /^^T 



51 

of Stanley," against my use of which in the preceding 

number he so loudly declaims. The material part of 

the addition to the Prom. Ign. Fragm. 1. is anticipated \ <hs$~^£***> 

by Stanley and Pauw, whose words I have quoted. 

Fragm. II. None of the emendations proposed by 
the Reviewer seem to me happy, and all are, as 
even the Reviewer seems fully aware, open to the 
strongest objections ; the sense which I have given 
after the emendation of Pauw, which, however futile, 
happens to come from the Dutch School, and from no 
less a man in it than Hemsterhusius, appears to me the 
easiest and most natural. 

Fragm. III. When the Reviewer says, " The intro- 
ductory words of Plutarch prove that this was a satyric 
drama, of which indeed the fragments themselves con- 
tain internal evidence ;" the natural inference is, thatT 
have maintained a contrary opinion, at least no one 
would suspect that I had both quoted the passage from 
Plutarch, and maintained the very same positions which 
the Reviewer seems to advance as his own. 

In respect to the fragments of the Prometheus Solu- 
tus, the Reviewer says that, " I do not mention that 
in Dionysius is sS o!&& for o-xtf oUcc, which is true ; or 
pip-bei for pip^Y), which of course I had no occasion to 
give, as it is the same word, vide p. 32, or 6Spo? wsp w for 
&?§«; we%uv } as H. Stephens had corrected the words in 
Strabo. Now as OSpo? <n^ uw are the words of the text as 
quoted from Strabo by Stanley, and GSp 3 ' ; mp t» are the 
words of the text in Dionysius, and as the Reviewer 
professes to take Stanley's text, for the basis of his re- 

H jnarksj 



52 



marks, 1 am puzzled to understand why I should have 



noted 0^6i ws^ m> as a variation from fit^o? wt^ u Vi to which 
^ f it seems as like as identity can make it. And as to my 




C *lraSSvT//^- 1 ? ot uavm & noticed Stephens' reading of O^oj w^», I can 
A/«"» ^, Y -'**V>fiiy say, that, if my eyes do not deceive me, I have 
5^ ^ ^'...-3-v* '•' given it at full length in Stephens' own words, p. 220. 
I r K'< /'''■• *f? * ° 5 ^^ ^ K * *V ; "^ ' J * c y 1*/+**- . 
" Secondly, he gives Sahnasius the credit of o-b 
£z\uv ha%eis for cv[jL@tt,Kuv huosiq, which is the correction, 
and an elegant one it is, of Paulus Leopardus, Emend. 
v. n." — Now it so happens, that I quote the emendation 
/£>t^> ~ >^ ^ of Paulus Leopardus at full length, which is notify $«hwv 
&«!«k, but crv @x\w» hums, from huibu ; and hence it fol- 
lows that I have not attributed the emendation of Paulus 
Leopardus to Salmasius, but have given suum cuique, 
each his own, with more fairness and more accuracy than 
I can always find observed by the Reviewer. With 
regard to the alteration of the word rgoyyt*«» I must leave 
it to the sagacity of the Edinburgh Reviewer, only 
remarking, that I quite agree with him in rejecting 

f The arrangement of Fragm. iv. is palpably obvious, 
) no man can take credit to himself for so insignificant an 
exploit. I am, therefore, willing to resign the glory of 
v it to Toup. in Suid. I. p. 94. 

" Fragm. v. w«^ is Bentley's correction, and 
notPauw's. Epist. ad Mill. p. 50."— What is that to 
me, good Mr. Reviewer ? I have given Pauw's note as an 
editor of ^Eschylus, with his name printed in-capitals 
after it; and you and he, young Gentleman, must 
settle the matter. — I now come to the Supplices. 

" V. 4. 






53 

" V. 4. Mr. Butler has not remarked that Porson re- 
tained the old reading *swro£a05», without the article ; rfo 
does not appear to us to be indispensable, tho' it improves 
the verse." — Here I must once more apostrophize the \ 
Reviewer, and say, My good Lad, I profess to give Varias \ 
Lectiones, varias different lectiones readings. Now the 
reading in the text of Stanley is AnfioQabm, without the 
article, and the reading in the text of Porson is AewIoj&B- 
G«», without the article, and as Az<if\o$a.QZv looks to me 
very like AvkIq&Mv, I did not conceive it to be a different 
reading, and for that reason I did not notice it. This is 
not the first nor the second time that I have had occasion 
to remark the hypercritical accuracy of the Reviewer, in 
trying to lay sins of omission, though groundlessly, to 
my charge. The remaining part of the sentence, in which 
the Reviewer says that ruv is not indispensable though it 
improves the verse, reminds me of that judicious criti- 
cism in the Spectator, where the commentator has but 
two foolish reasons for preferring a certain reading ; first, 
because the rhyme, and secondly because the sense, was 
preserved by it. 



Passing over the intervening matter, which is not 
my immediate concern, I come to v. 84, which the 
Reviewer reads iQ^v $ tivpm <rrvy2vres 9 as if it were so 
printed in the text ; whereas it is iW^u<; in the text, and 
Irvpus is a Var. Lect. his conjecture, however, that » 
should be added, deserves consideration, though his 
interpretation by no means satisfies me. 



" An excellent conjecture of Rothe's, in v. 101, is 
unnoticed ; he reads favih* for ^ awt&y," — I never can # 

believe that ^Eschylus, who uses Somi^j with the first / y^ j ^f? 

Trir long T^f*^-- 



54 

long in the two instances in which it occurs, Prom. 

v. 828, and Choeph. v. 796, would here use it short, tho' 

it is short in Homer. But if oW^o* be an allowable 

<. mf ^ ft *^ reading here, why is yawe&> forsooth the true reading in 

„ w- £4r*-4 the other two instances, see p. 38. But what becomes 

, tie* ?/l* of the much wanted #, if we read £**-/&», and what 

A 7 / > r c «< becomes of the metre, if we read & Wc&w ? And why is 

not the sense good enough from the common reading ? 

" There is a dismally tedious note on v. 130, in which 
a conjecture or two is set forth in the form of a queiy : 
Nee tamen placet, says Mr. Butler ; which observation, 
with regard to ourselves, is strictly true." — The note on 
v. 130, is, I fear, dismally tedious, and the sneer with 
which the Reviewer closes his remark on it, is, I fear, 
but too well founded. Yet what could I do ? The 
passage is deplorably corrupt. I have collected all that 
preceding commentators have written on it ; and shewn 
where they failed. I have added my own observations, 
and given whatever hints I could, towards its elucida- 
tion. I have confessed the difficulty, and the dissatis- 
faction I feel, after all that has been done ; and I have 
recommended the passage to better scholars, who may 
come after me. The Reviewer has no reason to expect 
that I should enliven a critical commentary with a coun- 
try dance, and I do not observe, notwithstanding the 
contempt he expresses for all that I have done, that he 
has offered any thing of his own. So much easier is it 
to find a fault than to correct one. 

" Schutz is certainly right in taking &>go; with j&jpf- 
(,mIq* 9 notwithstanding that the learned editor on this 
occasion i desiderates Mr. Schiitz's wonted elegance.' 

But 



55 

But where, in the name of fortune, did Mr. Butler learn 
to talk of the elegance of this commentator, which is a 
topic he insists on in frequent laudatory remarks ? May 
we not expect to hear of the elegant Le Clerk, the 
elegant Pauw, the elegant Bothe ? What possible claim 
an editor can have to this epithet who possesses neither 
learning, taste, nor literary honesty, we are at a loss to 
conceive." — I would ask the Reviewer if he does hear of 
the elegant Le Clerc, the elegant Pauw, or the elegant 
Bothe ? Or if I have in fact applied that epithet to them 
in any instance ■? But this passage only affords too 
striking an instance of the narrow spirit which prevails 
among some of the disciples of the late Greek Professor. 
From his own unrivalled height, that truly learned man 
looked down on inferior scholars with too much fastidi- 
ousness. But if he, from his acknowledged pre-emi- 
nence, had a right to consider the generality of scholars 
as beneath himJ>and if, with a weakness which certainly 
one could have wished he had not indulged, he some- 
times spoke of them too slightingly, are his juvenile 
disciples entitled to the same liberty ? 

An quodcunque facit Maecenas, TE quoque verum est 
Tanto dissimilera, et tanto certare minorem ? 

It has been my great object, throughout my whole i 
work, to treat no scholar with asperity — to indulge in n6 ] 
petulant sneers— no flippant sarcasms — no contemptuous I 
irony. XscBolar ough t to be a gentleman. He ought to ' 
have his manners and his disposition humanized by the 
studies in which he is engaged ; and if in the pursuit of 
them he only acquires a certain number of hard words, 
and scattered fragments, and long and short syllables, he 
had better have employed himself in some useful me- 
chanic 



56 

chanie occupation, for he has obtained no knowledge 
/ /- /"that will justly entitle him to respect. All wanton and 
.. j unprovoked abuse, which we so often see scholars apt to 
i ,f. *~ ■■.?£< '+{ > / lavish on those who happen to differ in opinion from 
\ them, is a disgrace to themselves, and on their own 
Vfceads be the folly and shame of it. The late Greek 
Professor, in my humble opinion, very much under- 
valued the talents of some of the continental scholars, 
who, tho' not equal to him in acuteness or depth of learn- 
ing, were yet no contemptible men. His imitators, 
with the usual servility of that tribe, affect a supercilious- 
ness, which is neither warranted by their learning nor 
their experience, and which I shall certainly use my 
humble and ceaseless efforts to oppose. When 1 am 
made to say " that I desiderate Mr, Schutz's wonted 
elegance," the youthful Reviewer has translated the words 
f* ubi solitam elegantiam viri cl. desidero." This I will 
maintain, in defiance of a triple phalanx of Edinburgh 
Reviewers. Schutz has done more than any preceding 
commentator except Stanley. He has explained many 
passages before left in obscurity, and has explained 
them well. Where a passage is capable of two inter- 
pretations, he has generally preferred the better — the 
more natural — the more pleasing — or the more poetical. 
— On these grounds I maintain, and will maintain the 
justice of my expression. Schutz had not great metrical 
skill, great accuracy in collation, or great confidence in 
his own powers; yet he has done a great deal. His 
want of literary honesty is unpardonable and notorious ; 
and whoever takes the trouble to read my note on v. 
213, will see my opinion fairly stated. But he will find 
no abuse there. He will find certain facts affirmed — 
and the proof of these facts adduced — and the inference 

left 



57 

left to the reader — and a candid acknowledgement of 
the merits of Schutz in other respects. This, however, 
is a subject which more properly belongs to my preface, 
where it will be discussed fairly and temperately. 

With regard to my interpretation of »*« ariyav Sofa, it 
would not have been " superfluous to prove it false," as to t/ ^ >€ *^ ^<f^ j£ 
me it is evidently true. Audi might more justly find fault 
with the Reviewer for having omitted to assign a reason, 
than he blames, me for having said, %%m Porsonus quod 
quis non praetulerit ? Surely in using such an expression I 
cannot have left the least possible doubt on the mind of the 
reader which I thought the true reading ; and why was I 
to go out of the way to state that which no tiro in the 
language can be ignorant of. But the Reviewer is here 
guilty of Hypercriticism with a vengeance ; he finds 
fault with what he acknowledges to be right, merely that 
he may have the opportunity of displaying his lore in a 
matter, which not only every scholar, but every boy who 
begins to make Greek verses, must know. Does he sup- 
pose that I have not even schoolboy information enough 
to know that the last syllable in <p§o»a:ra? is long ? Could 
not even the accent have discovered this to me, if I had 
been ignorant of the prosody ? And have I not in a hun- 
dred previous instances remarked the law of the termina* 
ting trisyllable ? and can it be necessary then to give a 
solemn decision between two readings, where one makes 
a false quantity and the other does not ? Would it not ) 
be a wtfiepy'Hz, a superfluous expense of time and paper ? It C 
has been my general rule to make a remark on such oeca- ' 
sl ons, w here there is any discrepance of opinion or room 
for error. In the space of the very single page opposite 
to that which contains the note in question, I have 

omitted 



^~* 



58 

omitted to observe — first, that yfyfli, is the true reading, 
not yxfotit, as in Aid. — 2. That w^o/x^iav is the true 
leading, not vr^o^luv, as Guclph. Aid. — -3. That rap 
kirn Msptms is the true reading, not *4* Iwihtiepivoiq, as 
Rob. — 4-. That «|oi»^a«toi is the true reading, not a|o»e»A«To* y 
as Aid. And so in many other instances, amounting in 
the whole, in the single page preceding the note, to no 
less than twenty eight : and in like manner in every 
■ page. For in giving the Varr. Lectt. it surely could not 
be necessary to interpose my own judgement in cases 
i which are so evident as to speak for themselves. What 
would be the use of saying r»po*7* Aid. qua? vox corrupta 
v videtur. Ta/*' smSeXTupeva; Rob quod permetrum fieri non 
potest, (a case in point) 'A|o»eftaToi Aid. H, et El scil. in 
Codd. ssepe confunduntur. I might have said all this, but 
would it have improved any reader qualified to sit down 
to iEschylus ? — Surely no. 

I should have thought such wise saws, delivered with 
such solemnity, on such a case, an indirect proof that 
the commentator had no real learning in store for real 
difficulties. Indeed, the Reviewer, who generally takes 
occasion to make a display when there is no difficulty, is 
not less astonished at the profundity of his own know- 
ledge, than the poor Welchman in the ASTEIA of the 
modern Hierocles, who having never seen a piece of 
gold, and being paid 15s. 6d. for work done at Bristol, 
in half-a- guinea and two half-crowns, hastened home 
with his treasure, and exclaimed, casting a farewell look 
of commiseration on the distant spires of the city, c Ah 
poor Pristol, poor Pristol, one more such plow and its all 
over with thee !' So mighty was the treasure which this 

honest 



59 

honest Welchman conceived himself to possess, because 
he had never seen so much before. 

" For™?, v. 228, we think vuv should be read."— 
And I think >£» should not be read. And I think / think 
is as good authority as we think, whatever the Reviewer 
may think on the occasion.* 

" If we mistake not, Person's correction was you* tffc' J%*~v^ 2 ~ 
(wvirn tew" — Would it not have been fair to have stated ^ ^ 2**-<^ r 2£> 
that pwfyuv $mv> was my conjecture on the subject, how- 
ever inferior it might be to Porson's r* 

" The Strophe and Antistrophe which Mr. Butler 
has arranged at v. 639, are capable of a much more 
Rhythmical division, but we shall forbear to suggest it, 
as our hints will probably have been superseded by the 
appearance of Dr. Burney's work on the choric metres of 

I i£schylus 

* I am not unconscious of the advantage which I am giving the 
Reviewer here, who will probably urge this passage as an instance 
of my ignorance of grammar, or my deficiency in arithmetic, not- 
withstanding I have " flourished" so magnificently about Cocker, 
and shewn myself acquainted with at least addition and subtraction 
in p. 27. What? may the Rev. say, does " this friend of Joannes 
Muller" pretend to edit iEschylus, when he cannot tell the difference 
between / and we ? — I believe / know the difference, though I may 
not chuse, myself, to state it, I have not the least doubt it will be 
found out in due time. However, for the benefit of the uninformed 
or uninitiated, I shall state that in a Review we means i, and us 
means me, and our opinion means my opinion. The reason of 
which is, that if an author were supposed to meet a Reviewer on 
equal grounds, the public opinion might as often incline to the 
Author as to the Reviewer in any disputed point. But when these 
paper pluralities are brought in to aid, comfort and abet said Re- 
viewer, the reader is naturally entrapped to be on the stronger side, 
as if a J unta of greyb>earded sages had decided the case. 



60 

^fischylus before these remarks can issue from the press." 
— This is a rare instance of modesty in a stripling Re- 
viewer. He says, that a more rhythmical division might 
be made, but lie very wisely forbears the attempt, and 
remains guarded by his own general assertion. If it is 
objectionable, the Reviewer should have specified his 
objections, and shewn that he could have done better. 
But no — in his great modesty he thinks his hints will 
have been superseded by Dr. Burney. 

" The commentators have made sad work with 
v. 568, and Mr. Butler hallucinates with the rest. — o» t* 

inigXyvcto Tv<pa (jlsvo<; "Y&tfp to Nsfaoy vo&oh; a0»xTo>. Pulcherrime 

says Mr. B. interpres Gallicus Ou se repand amen ee par 
Typhon V eau du Nil : this may be beautiful, and it is 
new, but it is not true ; and, till the French translator or 
the English editor has explained to us the construction 
and the meaning which they have adopted, we shall 
continue to think Nifruw the antecedent to &." — How far 
the Reviewer understands French I know not, perhaps as 
well as he does Greek, in which case it will be superflu- 
ous in me to hint to him that he has continued to think 
/Nsite the antecedent to %*, as the French translator 
t thought before him. But as I have commended the 
French translation, and am called upon to explain it, I 
must venture on this work of supererogation. I must, in 
order to do this clearly, premise the interpretation of 
Stanley. He makes *upuva the antecedent to o\, and his 

Construction is, ov /mo? Tv<pa ivi^x?a% (oNjAowli) to v^ (to) 

NeiXs voo-oi; aG«1o». And certainly this is not bad sense, 
nor am I very angry at those who adopt it as the 
most obvious explanation of the passage in question. 
There are, however, in my mind, two objections, suffi- 
cient 



61 

cient to incline me to the more recondite interpretation j 
these are, the presence of the particle r\, and the use 
of the words Tv<pZ pins as applied to the Nile. For, if we 
take the more recondite interpretation, and make o» refer 
to NttAw, we shall have the particle rl in its place, and the 
words Typw /aevoj, applied to the furious hot winds, still, I 
believe, in that country called typhoons or tufauns: the 
snow-fed plain (for so I would chuse to construe it, 
alluding to the increase of the Nile from the snows on 
the ^Ethiopian mountains) and the salubrious waters of the 
Nile which (Nile) the furious Typhon invades. Now 
this is exactly in conformity with the doctrine of Plu- 
tarch De Is. & Osir. p, 366, who tells us (from the 
scarcity of Greek types I am obliged to translate the 
passage) that Typhon signifies the principle of heat 
or dryness, destroying that principle of humidity which 
causes the increase of the Nile. And the queen of the 
^Ethiopians, who is said to be his auxiliary, signifies the 
south winds from Ethiopia,' for that, when these south 
winds prevail over the Etesiae, or periodical north winds 
which drive the clouds towards ^Ethiopia, and by such 
prevalence hinder the rains, which cause the increment 
of the Nile from falling there, then Typhon continues 
to act on the Nile till he diminishes it by evaporation, 
and prevailing entirely, drives, or conducts the nile, 
contrary to its usual form, contracted and flowing in a 
low and hollow channel, to the sea. In the words 
amenee par Typhon, we have the very expression of 
Plutarch ; and I leave to any man, who knows the rudi- 
ments of grammar, to determine whether, when the 
French translator says ' amende par Typhon 1' eau du 
Nil' he can possibly make o» the relative to any thing but 
'23l»§ to Ns»A». Is it not exactly as if he had said, l'eau du 

1 2 * m 



62 

Nil qui est amende par Typhon, or T eau du Nil que 
Typhon amene ? 

" V. 814. The passage from /Elian adduced by A, 
bresch, is nothing to the purpose, we are surprised that 
Mr. Butler should not have illustrated the phrase." — I 
have here quoted Abresch, as I was bound to quote any 
other commentator, not as approving. What does the 
Reviewer mean by complaining that I have not illustrated 
the phrase ? I have quoted a similar passage in Eurip. 
Androm. where wp~» corrupts the metre, where rapt?* pre- 
serves it, and where ripva is used in the sense of tvg'wtj. 
If to have chosen the most apposite passage in the whole 
compass of Greek literature, be not to illustrate it, I 
will beg the favour of the Reviewer to give a specimen 
of his illustration. 

The Reviewer exhibits the first sixteen lines of the 
deplorably corrupt monostrophics at v. 81 5. sqq. which 
he reduces to Antistrophics. I shall here confess that I 
am not deeply infected with the Antistrophico-mania, 
which is very prevalent among the Porsoninians and 
Porsonaccians of the day,* which yet their really great 
master does not seem to have indulged in. I cannot 
think that after the torture of transpositions, rejections, 
and insertions in every line, we are likely to have much 
of the sense or many of the words of the Greek Trage- 
dians, though we may be very much edified by the 
lucubrations of Messrs. and A. B.s or Under- 
graduates, who facetiously nickname them Greek Cho- 
ruses. 

* The Reviewer, who no doubt is as well versed in Italian as ia 
Trench, will understand the value of these terras. 



63 

ruses, I am. very cautious in firing my* canons, but 
I think I can venture to discbarge one with great advan- 
tage, as it will afford them an unerring guide to all the 
corruptions of the Greek MSS. And in doing this, I 
shall be more liberal than some of the graver doctors of 
the Hermetic art, who used to wrap up their alchemical 
arcana in mysterious and impenetrable obscurity. My 
receipt for the " opus magnum' ' carries its own re- 
commendation, in its simplicity and perspicuity, and 
here it is ; 

ABrAEZH0IKAMNSOnP2TT<KXyfl 

Shake these letters all together, transpose and transverse 
them secundum artem, coque celeriter in cerebello asin- 
ino, adde ioMy^oQ^spL satis confidentiae, doctrinae 
parum, et sic facies 

QUIDLIBET ex QUOLIBET. 
Probatum est. 

For instance, A SOW'S EAR. For 0,W,'S, read 
I,L,K, and for EAR read PURSE, and thus, with no 
trouble, you will have accomplished a greater labour 
than ever was ventured on by Hercules, and in defiance 
of the wisdom of ages and the infallibility of the adage, 
you will have made A SILK PURSE of a SO W's EAR. 

But to return to the Monostrophics. — It is true, that 
sometimes a line and sometimes a whole strophe is mis- 
placed in a chorus, but it does not necessarily follow 
that all monostrophics are reducible to a regular form ; 
and I am sure they were not all designed so. For 
instance, will any man affirm that the wild ravings of lo 
in the Prometheus were written Antistrophically ? I 
shall believe him when he is able, by any method but 

that 



64 

♦hat of my patent canon, to reduce them, and to prove 
that in such regularity there is more truth and nature 
than in their present form. Still I do not deny that in 
various instances the JNIouostrophics have been well and 
successfully arranged, but that is no reason for attempt- 
ing them all. The Tragcedians, comparatively speak- 
ing, rarely employ trochaics for the dialogues ; are we 
therefore to cut down all trochaics to Trimeter Iambics ? 
Let us see how we shall succeed according to the patent 
canon: ^Esch. Pers. v. 159. 

Aure? Wxva %§ucr*orotytct/; $6p&; 

0s3 T£ xaftS aoivov tvvarr/^ot 

¥L^aoia,9 o upvaau (pgovli$ 15 &' v(xeL<; opoj. 

AinoYE'. Tavl* ^ AwScr' adscripsit Graeculus, quod aperte 
vitiosum. ©EOT TE kamoy Inskniter hie errarunt libra- 
rii. Pro Ge« in omnibus Codd, scriptum est xaJ to AagEte, 
metro invitissimo. — Et sic inepte edidit Porsonus ; nos 
fitS dedimus nostro periculo. Qua quidem emendatione 
nihil certius aut felicius, ut e versu superiore patet, ubi 
Atossa 6s5 twumfu u^auv dicitur. Hoc explicare voluit 
Graeculus cujus scholium irrepsit in textum. KP.AAIAN A* 
sic nos ; an tea scriptum erat, inani rrs^yi^ Ka» p\ xatfieu. 
However, for the satisfaction of the Reviewer, I will 
confess to him, that I think these Monostrophics possibly 
were once regular ; and that I myself very boldly and 
successfully antistrophized just as much of these Mono- 
strophics as he has. And because I could not get any 
farther without the patent canon, which I lend to my 
friends, but am not, fond of firing myself, I thought it 
better to leave the whole in its monostrophic state, than 
to convert it into a Butlerian Chorus instead of yEschylean 
JvJorjostrophics ; for tho' I have the highest veneration for 
my own abilities and should be sorry not to write better 

Greek 



65 

Greek verses than ever came from the pen of jEschylus y 
}*et I do not think it fair to give my choruses to the public 
under his name. Suum cuique is my motto, as it was the 
Reviewer's, I suppose, when he stole your famous reading; 
of wgh civ iyay oiv. But on this subject it is but fair to 
refer to my note on v. 917. 

" We scarcely know what to say of v. 855, &c. except 
that the conjectures of Mr. Butler and his learned friend 
are equally inadmissible, since p&tvbcu requires a genitive 
case." — The Reviewer is right. My friend made a blun- 
der, which I too hastily passed over— -and I thank him for 
this opportunity of amending it, for I disdain to conceal 
it, or to call to my aid the UsTvo after psQwouai in Phceniss. 
v. 522, which Porson has rightly corrected. But to say 
the truth, I did not sufficiently disengage my attention 
from another passage of Euripides illustrative of this 
(see p. 62) Med. v. 558, fu^sTvon xccftixi piya,* %oAo v , and I 
must therefore request the reader to read here peQwoi* in- 
stead of |tA60£V9cn, with the rest of my conjecture, till he 
can extricate himself from this most corrupt passage by 
the help of the patent canon, or some better aid. 

V. 879. Here is a long and insulting note of the Re- ^^^ 
viewer, in which he assumes what he has no right to "y^ 
assume, that I do not see any corruption in a corrupt t^LT^^^^T' 
passage of Hesychius, which he is so good, partly by the **V /^^*-v/ 
help of the commentators on Hesychius, in imitation of r ^L" ^ *^~^~ 
no less a man than Bentley, to explain at his peril. I ~ „^ - S**Z/Lu 
must once more remind him, that I make no excursive v - *' " ' tM ^ 
criticisms in my notes, for substantial reasons already / ^, %tt ^j £/ 
assigned.* ^^£^^ ^ 

V. 899. t <* o^^^t^^ 

* I must be allowed to remark that I am sure, from various ®f /^ £^fyL 

passages ' 






66 

" V. 899. With regard to £a, ^*, and «5, about 

which interjections Mr. Butler seems to be in doubt, all 

that we could tell him about them has been anticipated 

by Valcknaer, in Adoniaz. Theocr. p. 382, to whom we 

refer him." — Docs the Reviewer positively and seriously 

mean to assert this, which is to affirm that he knew all 

Valcknaer knew, but that Valcknaer had the good luck 

to tell it first ? This reminds me of an impudent French 

master, who used to assert that Shakespeare stole all his 

irood things from Voltaire. With regard to Porson's 

conjectures, which are mentioned, they are, like every 

thing from that great man, truly admirable. But the 

if ( ^ ^ [Reviewer confirms Schutz's, not Porson's conjecture, 

, ' j ' j^zy ' respecting ot-6, and I cannot say that I am prodigiously 

i enchanted with the hiatus of his own emendation. As 

J to the S Va», which is indeed admirable, he should in 

: fairness have added, that Porson had the hint from 

i Heath, who read e" V» t^'. The third of these 

conjectures is a splendid instance of the sagacity and 

acuteness of the late Greek Professor. 

« We 

7 _ passages of the Review, tl^^he_J^eview,er_d_id _aaJL_suppos_e 

/^c^,*^ I^h ad jread thejtwo Ejus tolas criticae -of that admirable scholar 

Ruhnken. When I refer him to pp. 171, sqq. pp. 176, sqq. of 
that work, Edit. Mitscherlich, he will, I hope, change his opinion. 
The Reviewer no doubt will, at some period, oblige the world with 
emendations which may eclipse those two most splendid monuments 
of critical sagacity, to which 1 cannot but observe that he is under 
the greatest obligations. Not only as to his flourishes about ?u, Aa, 
& »*j, but on various other occasions. From the same source, 
pp. 221. sqq. come all his objections to Hesychius and the Lexi- 
cographers, in which, however, he has omitted the introductory 
passage " Hesychii auctoritati, fateor tribuendum esse plurimura. 
Est enim ejus Lexicon incomparabilis Grascas eruditionis The- 
saurus, quod nunquam fere de manibus pono, semper doctior ab 
ejus lectione recedens." 



67 

" We cannot refrain from expressing our surprise* 
that none of these emendations which the late Professor 
communicated to his friends, should have reached Mr* 
Butler's ears ; for we cannot help thinking that he 
might have come to the knowledge of them without 
much trouble. Such is the veneration which we feel for 
the name of Porson, that we think it a duty incumbent 
on every English Scholar, who is preparing an edition of 
a Greek author, to enquire diligently what has been said 
by that incomparable scholar on the subject, and to re- 
cord his opinions with deference and fidelity." — My dear 
Sir, whatever the Reviewer may think on this subject, I 
am sure you will feel obliged to me. The surprise of the 
Reviewer may cease, when he learns that I did see the j 
late Professor's emendations. The book was put into my j 
hands in Trinity Coll. Cambridge. But I was told at j 
the same time, that you was then preparing an edition of 
^Eschylus for the press, and that you possessed these 
emendations. They were not offered to me — and I did 
not ask for them, because I thought, by so doing, I 
should disappoint your hopes of producing an attractive 
novelty to your edition. I had no jealousy lurking in 
my mind that your edition might possibly interfere with 
mine, which was just coming out ; and had you, when I 
saw you, in a fair and manly way, said that you were 
about such a work; I should have told you that I thought 
the world quite wide enough for you and me, and 
should have been the last person living to have endea- 
voured, by insidious depreciation, by a sly anonymous 
cavil in a Review, or by any other means whatever, to 
injure your feelings, or your reputation, or your advan- 
tages. — If I had reviewed your book, and I very possibly 
might have clone so, it would have been in the spirit of a 

K scholar* 



68 

scholar. 1 should not have contented myself with writing 
two Numbers full of objections. I should indeed have 
objected to what appeared worthy of blame, but I should 
not have diligently sought for opportunities of blaming; 
I should not have distorted, misquoted, or misrepresent- 
ed you. I should not have insinuated, in almost every 
sentence, something tom} r own credit, and to your disad- 
vantage. I Should not have dealt in petulant provocations, 
in contemptuous sarcasms, in quibbling mistarements. 
I should have pursued also a very different conduct from 
the E. R. in looking rather for occasions of commenda- 
tion than of censure, and in fairly bringing forward some 
specimen of your literary merits, by quoting some of 
your own notes. It is singular, that in the whole 
Review of my book, there is not a single quotation, by 
which the reader may form any thing like an opinion of 
it. One note alone, and that note only consisting of 
two lines and a half, is quoted in the whole review 
of tWerity pages, and that note is not mine but Muller's, 
i and quoted for the purpose of a petulant and unbecom- 
' intf remark, which, if the Reviewer has any sense of 
shame left, he will blush to have made.-^-I should have 
pursued the conduct of a liberal and very judicious 
scholar, whose review of my work in the Eclectic Rev. 
for Nov. 1809, renders me very desirous of having at 
some time or other the honour of knowing him. His 
opinion, I am glad to remark, respecting the notes of 
" Joannes Muller," is not quite in unison with the E. 
R.— He does not think him " unusually facetious ;** but 
he says, " Mr. B. has also enriched the edition with 
many admirable observations, philological, historical, 
and antiquarian, communicated by the celebrated Histo- 
rian M. Muller, of Vienna ;" and again, the " commu- 
nications 



69 

nieations of Professor Muller are pre-eminent in value. 
Schutz, it must be confessed, notwithstanding his de- 
linquencies toward Mr. Porson, is often a happy and 
elegant annotator, as he is an acute critic." (Here 
the Reviewer expresses exactly my own sentiments.) 
" Muller displays taste, good temper, and extensive 
erudition admirably applied ; and he appears most ho- 
nourably superior to the false and infidel philosophy 
which has infected the men of letters in Germany." 

But to return to the subject of the Porsonian emen- 
dations. Part of the Reviewer's " surprise" will perhaps 
be abated, when he finds that nearly the whole, I believe 
the whole within about twenty pages, of the volumes I 
have published, were printed during the life-time of the 
late Greek Professor — I shall therefore be very much 
surprised to hear that I was in fault for not having ob- 
tained these tefyxva. And having endeavoured to relieve 
his surprise in this particular, I am much concerned that 
I must probably now increase it, by stating what would 
have been my conduct had I been in the situation of the' 
Professor or of his friends. If I had intended to accom- 
pany my own edition of ^Eschylus with notes, I should 
have kept my own emendations to myself. This would 
have been but fair — and as I perhaps know an anecdote 
with which some of the late Professor's friends may not 
be acquainted, relative to his intentions with respect to 
notes and a preface, I certainly do not give any opinion 
as to his actual conduct, by my present declaration. Had 
I intended to give notes, and had I believed my emen- 
dations worth communicating, I would freely have sent 
them, together with such information as might be ser- 
viceable, to any scholar whom I knew to be engaged in 

K2 an 



.in elaborate edition of the work to which they related. 
Had 1 been a friend of the late Professor, in possession 
of such readings at his death, and having no positive in- 
junction to the contrary, I would also have communi- 
cated them. — So much for the line of conduct which in 
such circumstances 1 should have adopted — now for 
that which I have pursued. Delicacy towards you, my 
dear Sir, pre vented me, as I have already said, from 
making such application : — and I must add, that altho' 
this motive was alone sufficient, I should have found 
another, had that been wanting, from respect to myself. 
I could not have reconciled it to myself to go scrap 
hunting, and soliciting from strangers as a favour, what 
I do think might more properly have been offered tp 
me. And I know more than one respectable scholar 
whose opinion I am proud to say coincides with my own. 
Indeed I never mentioned the circumstance without 
finding an unanimous assent in this respect. 

" The arrangement of a chorus by Dr. Burney, 

which is given at v. 1019, from the Monthly Review, 

Jan. 1798, is a sufficient proof of the metrical skill of 

that eminent scholar. But the conjecture of Bothe, 

ffc&rogf) for GfaxTog*, v. 1048, appears to us quite indis- 

* putable, inasmuch as it improves the rhythm and the 

sense, and is confirmed by v. 1063, crb 8s Q&yoig u v elQs?ut- 

<pr-j} u^rTt^r .-o*," — Who would not suppose that X had either ob- 

* / jected to, or omitted Bothe's reading ? At least no one 

would suspect that I had quoted and approved it. 

" On the metrical notes of Mr. Butler it is difficult 
to decide : we do not believe that the metres of ^Eschylus 
can ever be defined with certainty, except in a few in- 



n 

stances/"— /This is the happiest way of overcoming a 
difficulty I ever knew. Do you not think, my dear Sir, 
that the Reviewer was afraid of pledging himself to any 
thing till Dr. Burney's book appeared, and that he kept 
this remark snug till the end of the "Review, in the hope 
that he might be able to say something ? In which being 
disappointed, he has crept out by this convenient and 
sapient refuge, not unlike Sir R. Coverley's remark, 
M That there was much to be said on both sides." 

" Mr. Muller's remarks on the first part of the Sup- 
plices are unusually facetious. We were somewhat 
startled by his expression " Curiosam Apidis historiam. 
The curious history of Apis. This we conceive to be 
curious Latin at all events." — 'Mr. Muller was probably 
deceived by imperfectly recollecting a passage in Cicero, 
where the word curiosus is used with historia, but in a 
different sense. Tusc. I. 45. Chrysippus ut est in omni 
historia curiosus. 

(i In v. 559. Stanley seems to imagine, that Avh» 
ylofoa. are the plains of Lydia ; and adds, " Planam 
fuisse Lydiam innuit adagium, Av&v efc wiaiQv wgojsax?**." — 
In the first place, yvxhov always signifies a hollow ; and, in 
the proverb adduced, Av&v is, a Lydian ; and the mean- p%^.rfU*>T J* 
ing of it is, " to challenge a Lydian (i. e. a coward J to t/ie <y^^£: jj^r*** 
fight" — This note belongs rather to Stanley than to rae, ; jf ^' y V 

so that I shall merely observe, that yixkov signifies pro- /f/^ Jz 2>~— 
perly the palm of the hand, hence it signifies any small „/ ' _^ 
or moderate hollow — a country abounding with these is 
certainly not mountainous, and may of the two rather be 
called plain. But the error, if it be one, is not Stanley's, 
jt is that of a greater man than even Stanley was, or, if 

possible, 



72 

possible, than even the E. Reviewer will be, when lie has 
tarried at Jericho till his beard lias grown, of Joseph 
Scaliger in his Conjcctanea in Varron. p. 17, who uses 
the very words which Stanley has quoted from hi in. 

To the rest of the remarks I have little to say. The 
Ci chaff" consists of the notes of all the learned men, 
who have written on <ZEschylus expressly or incidentally, 
from the time of the Edit, princeps to the present day. 
The " wheat" I am proud to suppose consists of the 
lucubrations of your most faithful servant, as it is said to 
occur in the NotaD Critics, which I have had the honour 
to compose, and of which the Reviewer is graciously 
pleased to say, " that they are worth consulting, per- 
haps mast be consulted by him who would study the 
text in its purest form." This little anodyne, so judicious- 
ly applied, has been sufficient to soothe all my irritation, 
and to make me part with the Reviewer on good terms, 
assuring him that if I have laughed at him, it was because 
I could not think it worth while to be angry — I could not 
prevail upon myself to break a butterfly upon a wheel, 
or, in a language perhaps more intelligible to a Scotch 
Reviewer (vide E. R. No. xxvii. p. 41.) to knock down a 
flea with a sledge hammer.* I assure you I do not wage 



* Dr. Goldsmith, in his Natural History, gives as a measure, the 
breadth of the black of his nail. Hence it was inferred that the 
Df. did not very often wash his hands. From the lively and 
minute description which the Edinburgh Reviewer has given in this 
passage of the various means by which certain animalcula are 
** caught and cracked," evidently written con amore, may we not 
infer that he now and then amuses himself with practical expeii? 
ments in Psyllagreumatics and Phtheiroctony. For these he may 
plead high classical authority. Aristophanes, Nub. 144. sqq. has 
recorded the ingenious experiments made by no less a philosopher 

than 



73 

a-*o*if*o« aWo^cj, but 1 here lay down my ccestus, and if 
I may be allowed to continue the allusion, I am glad 
to find that I resembled Entellus of old in having killed a 
calf instead of a hero. — If the E, R. has any wish for 

farther 

than Socrates, in consequence of a surprising leap of one of these 
little animals from the eyebrow of his friend Chaerephon to his own 
bald pate. — Even the grave -Xenophon, in his Symposium, intro- 
duces one of the company alluding to this instance of Socratic 
ingenuity. See also Lucian Prometh, c. 6. and Philopatris c. 12. 
It is singular that the doctrine of " catching and cracking," main- 
tained by the Reviewer, is exactly that of Hermes Trismegistus, 
who says, in a fragment preserved by Stob^us, Eclog. Phys. xxv, 
Uff>) Koo-fA.*, that these little animals are created for no other pur- 
pose but to be " cracked." 'E<p' 'in^ov & ov&v yiyvdai ^ on povov 

(p8ct$ ~ to ytvoq ruv ^/vhXuv. There is a most curious passage 

in Lucian Ver. Hist. I. 13. (a work, by the way, to which Swift, 
in his four voyages, is under the greatest obligation) descriptive of a 
whole army of Psyllotoxota?, who, he says, came from the 
North ! ! ! {uko rxiq cI^kIov) and who rode upon fleas each as big as 
twelve elephants. I much regret that my f memory and industry" 
do not enable me to discover in Lucian, or in any fragment of a 
Greek author, the method of fattening and breeding these enor- 
mous animals* If with the size of twelve elephants they combined 
the usual activity of their species, these PsyllotoxotEe must have 
been a most formidable corps. I am at a loss under what descrip- 
tion of force to include them j I think they cannot, without a 
catachresis, be called light horse, however active in their evolutions, 
I beg to recommend the farther investigation of this interesting 
subject to Sir Joseph Banks, Bart. &c. &c. &c. whose elaborate re- 
searches into the history of fleas are already recorded to his immor- 
tal honour, and whose dignified letter to the National Institute at 
Paris, I frequently read with great edification and delight. Should the 
E. R. in his thirst for blood have a desire to learn other modes of 
destroying the Socratic animalcule, besides that of " cracking," 1 
beg leave to recommend him to Pliny N. II. xx. 14. who recom- 
mends the combustion of the flowers of the herb called pulegium, or 
penny-royal — an infusion of the herb cunilago, or moth-mullen, 
N. II. xx. 16.- — of the seeds of the tribulus, a species of thistle, 
xxii. 10. — of pounded elder shoots, xxiv. 8. In order to escape the 
punctures of these little creatures there is an admirable receipt in 

the 



71 

father vengeance, I beg to remind him that he may 
glut himself with the blood (ink: I mean) of my three 
remaining volumes. I shall not hereafter think it worth 
my while to answer any remarks which he may put forth. 
And what I now say to the E. R. I mean to bay general- 

in, 

the Antiiologia, p. 129. Edit. IT. Steph. which is to put out the 
caudle, that they may not see you. 

So much for the more active of these little creatures. 1 shall 
now gratify the Reviewer with a disquisition on his other favourite 
little animal, drawn also from the purest sources of antiquity. 
Herodotus tells us of a northern nation ! !! who were so fond 
of " cracking" these little gentry, that they did not use the thumb 
but the teeth for that purpose, being Phtheirophagists, or devourers 
of them. We all know that Homer lost his life because he could 
not solve a riddle proposed to him by some fishermen upon this 
very subject. Vide Herod, de Vila Homeri, p. 760. Edit. Wesse- 
ling. And we find the account of these Phtheirophagists confirmed 
by Strabo Geogr. XI. p. 491. and again p. 499. And by Pliny 
N. H. VI. 4. It is a very curious fact, that by the help of the 
Edinburgh Reviewer and of Eustatiiius ad Iliad B'. 86S. p. 283. 
Edit. Basil. I am able to find why a particular species of fir has the 
epithet Scotch prefixed to it. I am sorry that from the paucity of 
Greek types I can only give the substance of the passages instead of 
the Greek itself, but as I shall quote the names of the authors in 
capitals throughout this note, I may make some flourish, though 
less than I could wish. Could I conveniently quote the Greek 
passages at full length, and use the plural instead of the singular 
pronoun, substituting WE for I, there would be a great deal more 
ostentation in this disquisition. Eustathius tells us, on the authority 
of the Ethnographist, for so he calls Stephanus Byzantinus, 
that there is a mountain in Caria near Miletus called (pbufiv %o$, a 
name so portentous that it made " my hair to stand on an end," as of 
late has happened to a much greater man than myself, in the British 
senate. These (p^^c, however, my friend Eustathius is so good as 
to assure us are not real animalcula, but only the seeds of certain pine 
cones called ^Oe^sj from their resemblance to those little creatures, 
which Pacsanias in his Lexicon has called ^xot. Cuoznonosccs 
tells us that it was bona fide snelt ^0?»^» ago; in general, but that 
Herodian the Grammarian (whose hair probably underwent the 

senatorial! 



75 

ly, should the mimic Persons of the rising generation 
attack either the present or subsequent volumes of my 
work in the countless ephemerides which issue from the 
press. I know that by the freedom of my remarks I 

L , have 

senatorial! horrifkation) dropped the g and used to spell it with a 
single ». In compliment, however, to the E. Reviewer, I shall 
range myself under the banners of Eustathius and Chosroboscus 
rather than Herodian, since he derives it from one $0j£the soh of 
Endymion, but others from p0 £ j£, the animal born, as Hermes 
Trismegistus assures us, merely to be " cracked.'* We may draw 
the inference, however, from Eustathius, that this animal was 
very formidable to the ancient Carians, for he tells us that they 
sometimes used the word to signify a destructive wild beast. 
Nearly the same story is told by T<zetzes in Lycophron. v. 1383. 
And we learn from Strabo, Geogr. xiv. p. 635, that Hecatj2US 
thought it to be the same with Mount Latmus. Nor do •« my 
good friends the Lexicographers fail me upon this occasion,** 
though I forbear to quote them, from the scarcity of Greek types. 
See, however, Hesychius in $>Qn%uv ofo^ and the learned note of 
Verwey, See also Suidas in d>0s*g, where Kuster's " reading 
and memory" seem to have failed him, for « he has omitted to note 9 
that the gloss of SuiDAs-occurs in Eustathius, and is well explained 
in the Minor Scholiast ad Homer. 1, c. Compare also the 
Etymologist on «i>0«£ & ^t^uv o§o?, where Sylburgius does not 
seem to have had his eyes quite open. — I now return from this 
(digression upon Scotch Firs, which I have no doubt grew upon 
mount Phtheiron (I am ashamed to translate this word) in Caria, to 
indulge the E. R. with a few more classical anecdotes about his 
little favourites. 1 find that the most accomplished, the most 
yaliant, and the most invincible prince that ever lived, even Ho- 
mer's own Hero, the matchless and immortal Achilles, had a great 
fancy for talking about them. In the courtly language of the day- 
he tells Agamemnon, Iliad ix. 378, thai he values him exactly three 
slaps of a louse ; for so Eustathius, p. 659, edit. Basil, informs us 
that this passage was antiently read and interpreted. I am sorry to 
add, that if the E. Reviewer has tasted any oil in which an ewet has 
been drowned, he will, as ^lur ieils us, Hist. Animal, ix. 19. abound 
in these creatures all his life. If he should find them multiply faster 
than he can conveniently " catch and crack them," I recommend 
him to Vlusy, H. N. xxvj. 16, who recommends the juice of the 

uva 



76 

liave disturbed the tU/tSf c(pnxn<; efefo^sw?, the whole nest 
of the aspirants to the Porsonian throne. But I care not — 
I shall not be at the trouble of arming myself even with 
a ily-ilapper to drive them away. I have other and 

better 

uva taminea which Gale-n and Dioscorides called staphysagrin, 
whence it is known in English by the name of Stavesacrc. S«e also 
Pliny xx. 12. and xxxv. 15. Yet it may be some comfort to the 
Reviewer, while labouring' under the inconveniences of a too nu- 
merous population, to learn, that in that case I shall be certain not 
to mistake him for an ass or an ox, since we are told by Pliny, 
II. X. xi. 33. tint of all hairy animals asses and oxen alone are 
exempt from their visitations. Pilos habentium asinum tantum im- 
inunem hoc malo credunt & boves. Yet some here read oves, sheep, 
and Aristotle Hist. Animal, vi. 31. who has a vast fund of interest- 
ing information on the birth, parentage, and education of these do- 
nie»tic little creatures* certainly docs appear to confirm ibat reading ; 
hut I must own I rather lean to boves. Aristophanes Pac.' v. 
739. alludes to those who wage war against these little animals, but 
I hardly think that the E. Reviewer; when he dwelt on the necessity 
of" catching and cracking" them, had either that passage of the 
Comedian in his eye, or a practical joke of no less a man than the 
great Agesilaus, King of Sparta, who, as Plutarch tells us, 
Apophthegm. Lacon. p. 208. when sacrificing at the altar of Minerva 
Chalcicecus, was interrupted by the unseasonable morsitation of one 
©f these animalcula. That great man, however, says my author, 
" caught and cracked" his enemy in the presence of all the 
assembly, observing, that it was a charming thing to avenge oneself 
upon an assassin and a traitor, even at the altar. . The E. R. need 
not be surprised that I have translated im^aMv an assassin and a 
traitor , for the same Plutarch, de Adul. et Amici Discrimine, 
p. 49. gives us an instance of their treachery, observing that they 
forsake their old friends when dying, just as rats forsake a falling 
house or a sinking ship. I shall only add, that Pallad as of Alex- 
andria has written an epigram, in which he declares his belief in the 
divinity of these little familiars ; having found a certain number of 
them taken inwardly to be an infallible cure for the ague.— Probably 
the old women of modern times, who I am told have recourse to 
this very chaim, never heard of Palladas, H. Stephens, or 
BaoDiEus. I could say much more from Columella, from Mar- 
tial, from the fragments of Eudemus, and a hundred other au- 
thors, 



better employment for my time than to give importance 
to these youthful journalists by engaging in controversy 
with them. And in return for the E. R.'s parting 
civility, I beg to tell him, that I shall consider it but 
goodnatured to let the greatest fool have the last word, 
and that I shall leave him to the o^uiet possession of his 
Own pages, where he may sing or say over my three 
remaining volumes just what he pleases, tiaavpca ra,v 
'tpa,v hoot, 1 shall go on as I have begun, bestowing not a 
thought on his censure or applause : and admitting such 
of the " lucubrations" of the " facetious Jo. Muller" and 
the " chaff" of the preceding commentators on ^Eschy- 
lus, as I think my readers have a right to expect in a 
Variorum Edition. My own notes I shall studiously en- 
deavour to confine to the points in question, not scat- 
tering my shreds and morsels of criticism on other 
authors, while my business is to illustrate JEsehylus. I 
thank the Reviewer for having given me sn oppor- 
tunity of making this single reply, because I have been 
enabled to state my sentiments on many subjects of at 
least as much importance as $ or r' 9 and to explain some 

parts 

thors, but I observe the E. Reviewers always like to glean after me, 
and are as anxious to pick up every straw which I have dropt as if it 
were a whole sheaf, therefore I will not deprive them of that 
satisfaction on the present occasion. — I am sure I have furnished 
them with a banquet from the purest classical sources, and I hope 
that they and all my readers will cry out in the words of the 
Mantuan Swan, 

" In tenui labor, at tenuis non gloria." 
If the Reviewer wishes to see the praises of his little favourites, he 
may read the Encomium Pulicis and the Laus Pediculi, written by 
the most eminent scholars that have adorned the republic of letters, 
in the Amphitheatrum Sapiential of Dornavius $ who, if he hai 
lived in these days, would I hope have consigned this disquisition to 
an honourable place among* the lucubrations he has there collected. 



78 

parts of my plan, and some circumstances relative to my 
work, more fully and more advantageously than I could 
have done in my general preface. And having done 
this, 1 am sure I have done enough. — My work, if good, 
will sell in spite of all misrepresentation, and if bad, will 
never add to my reputation in the opinion of real 
scholars, tho' be-praised in all the Reviews that are 
manufactured by the A* B.'s of Trinity College, and 
sold in London and Edinburgh. I now take my leave 
of the Reviewer, and suoftribe myself, Dear Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 
Shrewsbury, S. BUTLER. 

April 9, 1810. 



.>»*. 



LBY THE SAME AUTHOR, 

TpSCIIYLI TRAGCEBI^E, Jquaj supersunt, deperditarum Fabu- 
larura Fragmenta et Scholia Graeca, ex Editione T. Staneeii, 
cum Versione Latina ab ipso Emendata et Commentario longe quam 
antea fuit auction, ex Manuscripts ejus nunc demumedito. Acce- 
dunt Variaa Lectiones et Notas VV. DD. Critical ac Philological, 
quibus suas passim intertexuit S. Butler, M.A. Regia? Schola? 
£alopieasis ArchididascaJus, Coll. Div. Ioann. apud Cantabr. nuper 
Socius. Cantabrigiaj 1809. Vol. I. 4to. boards, £\. lis. 6d. Vol. I, 
and II. 8vo. boards, 16s. Veneunt Canlabrigiae apud J. Deigbton, 
et Londini apud J. Mackiulay, 87, Strand. 

(^ The 2d vol. 4to of this work, and the 3d and 4th volumes 
in 8vo, are in great forwardness. — In this work will be found great 
additions to Stanley's very learned commentary, from his own MS. 
collections for a second edition, together Nuth the Various Lectiour, 
of 20 MSS. of iEschylus and all the preceding editions, and the 
printed and ineditcd notes of the commentators on iEschylus, and 
other distinguished scholars, from the period ef the Aldine edition 
to the present time. To these are added copious critical and philo- 
logical notes of the Editor. The whole being intended to form a 
complete Variorum Edition of iEschyius. 



Eddowes, Printer, Shrewsbury, 



I > > 



fcf> 


3^^ 






> > *> » > > 




jP* 








^»-» > > 


:!>> 1 






*> 


"> y>» J> > 


v>> 


' ' ^ 




> 


> 


;>»»>> n 




JT 






> 


>»>> > ' ' 


V* 






i 


^> >> '> ~^ "* 


» 


» 






. *>^»> > 


. >. 


» 


> 




> »»:> > > 


» ' 


> » 


> 




^ ■>**>> '^ 




>> 


> 


• 


> >>->> > 


J^ 


> *> 


> 




> 5-5 >> > 


,-T^ 


, > «y> 


") 




> >Vg> > 


13 


*^> v» 




> 


> > >1>> 


£3 


p» > ►» 




> 


> > >'3> > 


*£ 


p> > >» 




» 


» > >'» > 




►> > »> 




> 


> > » > 


\M 


► > > » 


3 


► 


> > >:» > i 


-M 


*>^ ^> 


^ 


► 


> > » -» 


^J 


^» » 


3 


» 


> > » > ; 


3 




} 
3 


» 


> > » ■> .> 

> ~) » > > 


L*^ 


> >> ,, 


13* 




■„.> >■>>> > 


Vl 


» V > 


^ 


► 


^> >^> > 


>~ 


^ » > 


^ 


> 


>2> >^ 3 


> 


~^p ) 


J 


^ 


;> )J>> > 


> 


~^> ' 


ZJ 


* 


> > »>> ^ > 


^> 


""^ft ) 


^1 


► 


) ^ »■>> > 



J> ^ 


>> ^ > > 




^^^ 


> > 


>> > >> 


Z3 


^ 


> > 


» ^ :>> 


2ZJ 


^ 




>> ■> >> 


^ 


M 






^ 




z> 


ft 


' > _^»' 


> ■> > > 


j» 


^j 


>> »> -> >} " 






}> ;>> > » 


> > > -» » 


d^ 


^ 


» » ^ »' 


> 


^ 


>> ") 


> > » 


L> 




> . 


» ■> >.» r 


> 


^ 


^ ) 


> ) > >>" 


>> 


3 


» > 


> LJ> *> iD j 


> 


^P 


» > 


» > > > 5 


> 




>> >■ 


>; ■ ;> > >^: 


5> 


~^ 


> > 


>>.JO~> > 


» 


^J 


» J, 


»i J> > f» 


3 


"^J 


» _> 


>» >"> > 


^> 


^J 


> x 


> to ;> > 3 


> 




> Z> 3 


► >; > > > > 


> 


"~^J^ 




O > ^ ) 


z>z 


~J^ 


~>-^ 




> : > > 


» :• > > > 


r 


3> 


> :> > 


>> - > > 


j ' 


^> 


j> - > > 


' .» » 3 ^ 




1> 


• > > 


y> > > > 


> 


^>> 


►. J>9> > 


^ •.» > -> 




5> 


>> 


X> i> > 




x> 


>> 


X> o j> > 




x> 


X> 


» ^ > > 




}> 


>> 


>> ■> > > 




>^> 


>> 


» » > , 




,p> 


^ >> 


X>> r> > 


"i 


i r> 


ft> » 


>>. » ^ 


, 


> j> 




>»» 


> ' 


>X5 


>» y> 


j 


> » 


) 2>y >_> 






> » 


>J>J>J> 


> 
x 


> 


> » 






' 


> > 

> > 
> > 


> >>> » 


> 


; 


^> > 


> » >> 







>' > 



» 


> > > »x\> 


> > 


> ) >>^>\> 


>J> > 


> > 3 >^> 


>> ) 


> >)v-> 


ys> > 


:> »^i> - 


> > > 


> > > ) -> > 


>j> > 


- ^ >>:^» 3 


vj> »-» 


> >>;o > :> 


i> >' > 


} ;>J'KJ > 


> > > 


y yo^ J> 


>• y 


y >>;» > 


> ' > 


>£»S8» ;^ 


>> > 


>SK» > ? 


>o > 


>23K» > > 


>>-^ > 


>»._> ^ 


> > > 


>>J» > > 


J>> ) ^ 


> » > > ' 


> > 


>» ^ :> 


> > 


>» > > 


> > 


>>> > > 


> O 


■ >»> >^ 


> ^ > "> 


>>> > > ^ 


>> : 


> >» > > > 


> > 


► >J> > X ' 


> • . j> > ■- 


> > ;>~j ) J» > 


>^ • > > - 


-* »>> > > 


> ■> >^ ■ 


'^>»>^ > 1 


^ y > 


> > »>> > > 


> > - > 


) "^>^-^ ' J> ^ 


~> > > ^ 


> ^^i-* i , » ^» ^ 



> "^fe> 



2» : 


!> > Ifc ; 


^> 


~> >-> 


> 


)> 3 > 


Z> 


» > 


I> 


» > 


:^> 


» > 


^> 


>> ^ 


„^* 


>> 




>> 


>> 


>> 


>> 


y> 


» 


>> 


» 


> > 



» >^ 



->> > 

>> 

> » 

> » 

> >> 
> >> 

> » 

) •» 
) > >> 





y >■ 

> > > 


s^^») I 


) "V> 


^ 


> >> 


u^ 


» >> 


-J0*> ' 


'■> >> 


T£» • 


♦> » 




> > 


>">> > 


> > 


y^> > 


o s 


> » 


> 
> 


> >> > 


% 


^ ~*« -^ 


>> 



> > > 
7 > 

s > > 



-> > ^> 



- ^ > 

> > 

^> > 

> > 

> > 

> > 
> > 



> > > 



y > » > 
> > J " 
3 > > 

> >^ 

)>> > * 



> > > £ 

> > » 

> > >> 

> > p. 

► » 

» 



j ;> > :> ) .-> :s> 

. - *> > > > > » 

> » > > > > ^> 
^» y > > > >> 






^ » 



> >> > 

> » t> 



ts> :> ) -> ^ 


>> >i>> > > 


>3>' ^)>D > 


5>>3&^> ) 


3>» 3»>^ > , ? 


>» ^g>> :> > > 


y> ^e> > > ? 


X> ^>>-> > > 


> > x»>^o ^ > 


/> » > > ^ 


y >jp »:> > > 


> ^» •>•> > 


>> >:>> > > ' 


■-> >>^ - > > - 


>3>^> > > > » 


>> » » > > 


»>^ >0> : 


» »' 39 > ^ ' 


» » v ">> 


> ■ ^> :»^ > 


)> ^» ^ > :>> 


»■ ^> ^t> >^ 3> 


r> "» a®> >j t 


s> ;> ,» ^> >)" 


> 1> ^» v>;3 ^>; 


D jT> "» ^ > > 


L> Dl> "> > > 


, ^> >^ )) ^ 






/ 



9 ie6 ^50 eoo o 

lllilllllill 



in \\ 



ill mi nut i 

ssaMONOOdOAwaan 



& 




